Pulled over

[SimJen]

So Im riding along down a double lane road and decide to swap lanes (as there is a slow car in front, and another in the right lane just behind) and squirt it a bit and then pull back in and cruise at about 70 in a 60 zone (I Think).
Turns out guy who was in the right hand lane was a finger print cop who chases me and pulls me over.
He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me......so he takes my details and tells me a ticket will be in the post for 20 over the limit (as thats what I said).

Problems are:
1. he's not a traffic cop
2. he had no radar to check my speed with
3. I never agreed with him on speed as when he asked a second time he disputed my claim of 70ish but told me that the ticket would be for 20 over.
4. Its nothing to do with my speed if he chose to gun it to catch me.....he might have waited 30 seconds before taking chase. I which case he would have had to do 100+ to catch up.

Will this stand up and will he be able to send me a ticket?
Although he wasn't too bad of a guy........for once.

[sAsLEX]

about 70 in a 60 zone.

I tell him about 70 or so,

tells me a ticket will be in the post for 20 over the limit (as thats what I said).


no maths genius but 70 in a 60 is 10 over aint it?

[Patrick]

Problems are:
1. he's not a traffic cop
2. he had no radar to check my speed with
3. I never agreed with him on speed as when he asked a second time he disputed my claim of 70ish but told me thats what the ticket would be for.
4. Its nothing to do with my speed if he chose to gun it to catch me.....he might have waited 30 seconds before taking chase. I which case he would have had to do 100+ to catch up.

Will this stand up and will he be able to send me a ticket?
Although he wasn't too bad of a guy........for once.

1. Yes he is...we all are.
2. Has a speedo, which would have to be calibrated and certified to issue a ticket on......(hint...). Don't need radar.
3. 70 in a 60 is 10 km over the limit...$30 ticket??? Good deal if he thought you were doing 100 plus.
4. Dunno about that one. If he pursued you, the pursue speed is what he is relying on and he can send you a ticket. Depends on what was said and agreed to I suppose. Good to hear he wasn't too bad, otherwise.

[SimJen]

Yes I was over the speed limit, by possibly 20km/hr. some confusion on his part I think.
There was no way I was doing 100 not even for a second.
Im not too worried, its only money :(
If i can get off I will try

[onearmedbandit]

Oooh, I'd love a $30 ticket!! Mine are usually 10 times that amount.... (not that I've had one for a while now :whistle:)

[Lou Girardin]

Take Patricks hint.Ask for the certificate of accuracy.

[TLDV8]

What a load of bollocks... Since when could you get a ticket where there is no proof at all....What will the ticket say..going fast...a bit faster than that..or really fast???????..or some made up number that might have been?
I have plenty of respect,but what a plonker... "He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me".... the answer being... So?
>
..and what does this mean? "(as there is a slow car in front, and another in the right lane just behind)" ..impeding the flow,use the right lane unless passing?????

[duckman]

I've had the "well, you can expect a ticket in the next few days ...." line and never got em.

Don't sweat it. :sweatdrop

[onearmedbandit]

I think it's called 'assumed speeding' or something.

[Patrick]

What a load of bollocks... Since when could you get a ticket where there is no proof at all....What will the ticket say..going fast...a bit faster than that..or really fast???????..or some made up number that might have been?
I have plenty of respect,but what a plonker... "He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me".... the answer being... So?
>
..and what does this mean? "(as there is a slow car in front, and another in the right lane just behind)" ..impeding the flow,use the right lane unless passing?????

Bollocks??? He follows you for a distance of approx 250 metres or more at whatever speed you are doing, or at a constant speed while you pull away...certified speedo is viewed and the speed the patrol is doing is what you get done for. If you think he is going to stop you for no reason and just come up with a number well....dream on.

[SimJen]

Bollocks??? He follows you for a distance of approx 250 metres or more at whatever speed you are doing, or at a constant speed while you pull away...certified speedo is viewed and the speed the patrol is doing is what you get done for. If you think he is going to stop you for no reason and just come up with a number well....dream on.

I was speeding. not by much but still speeding. He didn't have far enough to follow me to get my speed and he didn't follow me straight away so it would have been nigh on impossible for him to judge my speed. He basically came flying up behind with lights blaring before slamming on his anchors.
It provokes good conversation on KB though :)

[Lou Girardin]

Maintaining station for 200 metres is all it takes. That's what cops used before all this Stalker bullshit, stealth and rat cunning.

[TLDV8]

I was speeding. not by much but still speeding. He didn't have far enough to follow me to get my speed and he didn't follow me straight away so it would have been nigh on impossible for him to judge my speed. He basically came flying up behind with lights blaring before slamming on his anchors.
It provokes good conversation on KB though :)


Exactly,if he had clocked you using any reliable means including a calibrated speedometer he would have been able to quote that speed,apparently imagination is good enough in this case.

[TLDV8]

Bollocks??? He follows you for a distance of approx 250 metres or more at whatever speed you are doing, or at a constant speed while you pull away...certified speedo is viewed and the speed the patrol is doing is what you get done for. If you think he is going to stop you for no reason and just come up with a number well....dream on.


Going by what has been written,none of that happened???..it reminds me of the good old days of South Auckland..one time i got a ticket for excessive noise,no harm in that,the catch was i was parked at the time.

[ScumKiller2]

.....He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me......so he takes my details and tells me a ticket will be in the post for 20 over the limit (as thats what I said).



I know it's too late now, but if it was me I wouldn't have admitted to speeding. If you go to court - which you could still do just to annoy the cop, and I especially recommend it for out of town police for a laugh as they won't be able to get their quota for the day - then he'll just say that you said you were going 70. Might be still worth a crack though, the worst that you'd hope for is you'd get the same fine/demerits. Depends what your demerits are like now.

As an aside, isn't there a maximum speed for coppers without lights and sirens? I once in 2001 had a cop speeding in the hope of catching me driving near Wanaka. He came from miles back, I saw him in my mirrors and thought hmmmm so slowed down. He got within a couple of hundred meters and did a u-turn. He seriously must have been doing 180+ to have caught me so quick. I saw him later in a speed-trap...... end rant... :sweatdrop

[Patrick]

Don't use lights and sirens if possible to catch burglars doing their deeds... kinda gives us away somewhat. Max speeds? Gotta get there safely.

If you get a ticket, request a copy of the officers notes on the back of the ticket and see what he says...there is a speed portion on the rear which will need completing, including the speedo calibration certificate number (if his car has one...usually only front line cars have them). If he doesn't have one, well...

[HenryDorsetCase]

thats why you were asked what speed you were doing, so you can get enough rope to hang yourself with... the answer is always always (even if doing 230kmh in a 50k zone past a bunch of schoolkids on a pedestrian crossing while wearing a bucket on your head and after drinking 9 tequilas)

"I wasnt looking at the speedometer officer, I was concentrating on the surrounding traffic, but my best estimate of speed would be [insert appropriate speed limit speed here]"

you MUST be able to maintain a straight face while doing it though.

[Zapf]

Question: Is the officer doing more danger to the public travelling at excess of 100km+ in a 60kmh zone with no lights on?

How long was he before he decided to catch you? Get a few physics equations... taking into account acceleration of bike vs car...

e.g if you are travelling 69km/h and him at 59km/h. and you passed him, he waited 3 to 4 seconds before deciding to catch up with you. What speed will he need to travel at over the next 10 or 20 seconds to pull level with you.

And request a disclosure package... its your right. it contains all info they have regarding this case.

[masterofpuppets]

dont worry...... usually when they say they'll send it in the mail they just dont.

[Psalm42]

I find it amazing, that for some reason NZers try to argue there way out of tickets. You were clearly a danger to the world in general, and need to be taxed to remind you. And if the 65% of money you already part with in taxes was not enough, when you calculate it out the price of the ticket tax you may or may not get will probably be no more than another 1%. While I'm ranting, can anyone explain why when you have been accused of the crime of speeding you never get your rights read to you? Im sure one of them is the right not to self incriminate... and not to make a statement... Thoughts.

[Ixion]

Because when you get a speeding ticket you are not (normally) arrested.

[Psalm42]

Well thats where you could be wrong. According to the interpretations, detention means arrest. What you are never told is you are being detained. Just make your first question, before they say anything "why am I being detained" You will be told your not being detained, in which case you say, in that case Im off have a good day, at which time you will very possibly be told if you go you will be done for resisting arrest. How can you be done for resisting arrest if you have not been told your are under arrest? Ignorrance of the law is no excuse. If you do not know being detained is arrest thats your tough nuts.

[Ixion]

Not quite. Normally you'd be required to stop under S114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Which is not an arrest. But you still have to stop and wait. S114(3)


(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—
(a)Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and

Then you get served with an Infringement Notice under S139 (the "ticket").

However, if you decide to tootle off , then you may indeed be arrested , under S114 (6)


(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—
(a)Failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or
(b)Given false or misleading information under this section.


At which time I am sure the arresting officer will advise you of your rights.

All in all , usually best to be nice polite biker and not try to be clever.

[Drunken Monkey]

... he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me......

I HATE that so f'n much. Did every 'traffic norman' out there fail maths for every year of their lives at school?! Why, oh why, do they think that is some sort of indication that you're speeding, ffs? Even if you were doing 10km/h UNDER the posted speed limit, as long as you were in front of him, he'd still have to go faster than you to catch up, otherwise he'd never catch you!

[Lou Girardin]

thats why you were asked what speed you were doing, so you can get enough rope to hang yourself with... the answer is always always (even if doing 230kmh in a 50k zone past a bunch of schoolkids on a pedestrian crossing while wearing a bucket on your head and after drinking 9 tequilas)

"I wasnt looking at the speedometer officer, I was concentrating on the surrounding traffic, but my best estimate of speed would be [insert appropriate speed limit speed here]"

you MUST be able to maintain a straight face while doing it though.

Then you are admitting to not knowing your speed. You cannot dispute the Officers statement. The response should be, "I was doing X km/h"

[Psalm42]

"Remain stopped" ? Is this not a form of detention? Also people make the assumption that jurisdiction has been proven. Ask the question, under what jurisdiciton are you being stopped. There is a difference between being a soft target and being aware of your rights. Same again though, for conveniance sake be polite and pay the money. If you do not rebut the assumption that you have no rights then you have no rights.

[spudchucka]

While I'm ranting, can anyone explain why when you have been accused of the crime of speeding you never get your rights read to you? Im sure one of them is the right not to self incriminate... and not to make a statement... Thoughts.
Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence against the Land Transport Act 1998 not against the Crimes Act 1961.

Unless you were being arrested for dangerous driving, (dangerous speed), there is no obligation to give a caution or bill of rights.

[spudchucka]

Well thats where you could be wrong. According to the interpretations, detention means arrest. What you are never told is you are being detained. Just make your first question, before they say anything "why am I being detained" You will be told your not being detained, in which case you say, in that case Im off have a good day, at which time you will very possibly be told if you go you will be done for resisting arrest. How can you be done for resisting arrest if you have not been told your are under arrest? Ignorrance of the law is no excuse. If you do not know being detained is arrest thats your tough nuts.
Another bush lawyer. Just what we need around here.

If stopped under the provisions of the LTA 1998 you are required to remain stopped while the cop carries out any of the powers prescribed within that act.

As soon as you are detained, as in required to accompany the cop for a breath test or arrested for an offence then you will be cautioned and have your rights explained.

[spudchucka]

There is a difference between being a soft target and being aware of your rights.
There is a difference between knowing your rights and being a dumb-arse who thinks he does.

[M1CRO]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm :whistle:

[TLDV8]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm :whistle:

Drink driving is not a crime unless you are over the limit..there is no incrimination if under. :whistle:

[Bulldog]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.

I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me. <_<

[SimJen]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.
I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me. <_<

Exactly I fail to see how a bike doing barely over the speed limit but capable of stopping quickly (and weighing 200kg) can be more dangerous than a shitty old Commodore station wagon (which can barely stop at the best of times and 1500kg) doing almost twice the speed limit.
I saw a cop do a U-Turn in front of oncoming traffic the other day in which a truck and a car had to take emergency avoidance to miss him, all so he could pull over a van doing barely more than the open road limit. Don't get me started about Hypocritical.

[spudchucka]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm :whistle:
You can refuse the officers request to supply a breath or blood sample, they can't physically force you to blow into the machine or hold you down while they draw blood.

You'll simply get arrested and charged with refusing the officers request, which carries the same penalty as drink driving and is the easiest defended hearing a cop will ever have.

[inlinefour]

take it on the chin and move on

[Lou Girardin]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm :whistle:

Another protection that was given away without serious debate of the issues.
The next ones will be the protection against double jeopardy and protection against state confiscation of property without a conviction.
The "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" attitude has a lot to answer for.

[Lou Girardin]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.

I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me. <_<

In theory the Cops are safer because their lights and sirens warn other drivers of their presence. In practice, an extended pursuit becomes exponentially more dangerous as the offenders driving becomes more extreme.
Then there's the danger caused by over eager cops doing U turns in traffic to chase speeders (as mentioned in another post). there has been a least one serious accident (at Te Kauwhata) caused by a cop doing this. I think it was What who had another close call too.

[SimJen]

take it on the chin and move on

I will, I always see it as inevitable getting caught.
You just got to hope you don't get too many tickets at once.

[Psalm42]

You will find what I have attached to the bottom of this post in the crimes act.
You may wish to pay particular interest to a and b.
It would appear the crimes act makes it clear that contravention of a statute is a crime.... that seems to me to be pretty clear that if you are getting pulled over and are told its because you have breached some statute, with out having to say so you are also being told it is a crime.
Its just the penalty thats different.
Also why if it is not a crime, and you chose to argue it in court, does it go to District court?
Under section 9 of the courts act you will see the jurisdictions.
Every time I have been watching at court, when asked what jurisdiction they are in, people fighting traffic cases have been told CRIMINAL.
How can it be based in a criminal jurisdiction if it was not a crime in the first place?
And if it is a crime why are you not read your rights, I think it is because cops would never get there quota if they did...
The last cop I spent way to much money on by sharing my time with him, got so angry, and all I was asking was simple questions, he eventualy yelled, "A Judge will believe my word over yours any day mate" and thats when you say , "You do realise I am recording this dont you?"
He stormed off. Why... All I wanted to know is what jurisdiction he thinks Im in and can he provide any proof of it.

If I am wrong in my understanding please explain why....

This of course also leads to ask the question, do any of the people who swear an oath actual understand it? Most cops I have as friends or have had the pleasure to meet have told me Common law, Well when you actualy understand that common law is based in "innocent until proven guilty". No one Ive met who has had a ticket thinks thats how it works. Its the opposite, as a number of people on this site have indicated, "prove your self innocent".

If a guy who has taken an oath thinks he is opperating in one law and is by his action opperating in another, whos the dumb-arse spudchucka.



107.Contravention of statute—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who, without lawful excuse, contravenes any enactment by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or by wilfully omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless—

(a)Some penalty or punishment is expressly provided by law in respect of such contravention as aforesaid; or

(b)In the case of any such contravention in respect of which no penalty or punishment is so provided, the act forbidden or required to be done is solely of an administrative or a ministerial or procedural nature, or it is otherwise inconsistent with the intent and object of the enactment, or with its context, that the contravention should be regarded as an offence.

[(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies to any contravention of any Imperial enactment or Imperial subordinate legislation that is part of the laws of New Zealand, or to any omission to do any act which any such Imperial enactment or Imperial subordinate legislation requires to be done.]

[(3)In subsection (2) of this section, the terms ``Imperial enactment'' and ``Imperial subordinate legislation'' have the meanings given to them by section 2 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.]

[Ixion]

Long long ago, before most of your mummys and daddys were even the proverbial glint in grandad's eye, there were no such things as Traffic Infringment Notices.

And if the police thought you were "scorching" , or committing some other offence agin the Law of The Land, they would proceed by way of a summons. A fearsome looking piece of paper wherein His Majesty King George VI summoned you , upon your peril, to attend at the next Session of the Crown Court to answer the various and several charges preferred against you by PC Plod, in that you did do various naughty things aginst the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King.

And you had to take time off work, and go to court, and plead guilty to speeding and get a criminal record . Which was not a Good Thing. As well as pay a honking fine and even more honking court costs.

And wise people said "This is a bit tough, getting a criminal record, with all it's problems, just for going a bit fast. Can't we have a simpler system where you just pay up the fine, like a parking ticket , don't get arrested, don't get a criminal record , and that's the end of it". Not to mention that King Georgie must have been getting a sore hand writing out all those summonses. And a wise and beneficient gubbernment agreed.

So now you don't get arrested for minor speeding ,and the Crimes Act is nothing to do with it.

But, if anyone wants to go back to the good old ways, power be to them, the way is easy. Just go a bit faster, and the cheery PC Plod will happily arrest you for dangerous driving. Which IS still a criminal offence, and WILL get you arrested, and cautioned.

[spudchucka]

.... that seems to me to be pretty clear that if you are getting pulled over and are told its because you have breached some statute, with out having to say so you are also being told it is a crime.
If you are being pulled over in relation to a criminal offence you have probably been stopped under section 314B of the Crimes Act not section 114 of the LTA. You will no doubt note the statutory obligations of any constable exercising this power.


Also why if it is not a crime, and you chose to argue it in court, does it go to District court? Because its the lowest court, except perhaps for JP traffic court, which is presided over by JP's not a judge and deals with non-imprisonable offences, like speeding.


Under section 9 of the courts act you will see the jurisdictions. You must mean the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. There is an Act titled the Courts Security Act 1999 and another titled Courts Marital Appeals Act 1953 but oddly enough there is no "Courts Act".

Anyway section 9 of the SPA 1957 states:


9.Jurisdiction of District Court Judges in respect of summary offences—

(1)A Court presided over by a District Court Judge has jurisdiction in respect of every summary offence.

(2)A Court presided over by a District Court Judge has summary jurisdiction in respect of every offence that by any Act is punishable by a fine, penalty, or forfeiture if no other form of procedure is prescribed by that Act for the recovery of the same.]

Whats your point?


This of course also leads to ask the question, do any of the people who swear an oath actual understand it? Most cops I have as friends or have had the pleasure to meet have told me Common law, Well when you actualy understand that common law is based in "innocent until proven guilty".


Common Law:


History of the common law

The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in continental Europe and other societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law recorded in Roman historical chronicles. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. Today common law is generally thought of as applying only to civil disputes; originally it encompassed the criminal law before criminal codes were adopted in most common law jurisdictions in the late 19th century, although many criminal codes reflect legislative attempts to codify the common law. The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.

Before the institutional stability imposed on England by William the Conqueror in 1066, English residents, like those of many other societies, particularly the Germanic cultures of continental Europe, were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity (trial by ordeal). If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.

In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.

Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously, with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Things were resolved eventually, at least for a time, in Henry's favor when a group of his henchmen murdered Becket. For its part, the Church soon canonized Becket as a saint.

As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House, by Charles Dickens.

In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most jurisdictions. In the federal courts there is no separation between law and equity; Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.

Basic principles of common law

Statutes which reflect English common law are understood always to be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily be seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practiced in England in 1750, since the colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as practiced in England only after that date.

By contrast to the statutory codifications of common law, some laws are purely statutory, and may create a new cause of action beyond the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the damages or compensation available are limited to those outlined in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly -- that is, limited to their precise terms -- because the courts generally recognize the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (compare judicial activism).

Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all damages traditionally recognized historically for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death.

What exactly did you say common law was based on?

[Psalm42]

Firstly, how is it you get the quotes in there? I am new to this whole chat forum thing.
And as such it is taking a bit of getting used to. So I have yet to figure out how to put your quote before my comment. So have put them in " " for now.

Your quote. "Whats your point?"

1. My point is according to 107 of the crimes act any breach of a statute is a crime.
2. That makes all stops that you make as a cop pulling someone up because you have the right because they have breached some statute, a criminal jurisdiction.
3. I meant the District Courts act 1947, section 9 (4) (a)
(4) The reference in subsection (2) of this section to jurisdictions means—
(a) The ordinary civil and criminal jurisdiction of District Courts, including common law and equitable jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction:
4. Because everyone is under the impression that it is common law and equitable jurisdiction and not admiralty jurisdiction, it should be a matter of the cops having to prove you are guilty not the other way around. If it is the other way around it would be admiralty law.
5. Because you are required to prove your case, any information a cop gets with out your concent is under duress and not admissable as evidence. If as a cop you where required to provide evidence of every element of a claim. You would not be able to meet the quota system and central government would have to consider droping the quota system, and in my opinion let police get back to more policeing and less taxing.

Your quote "What exactly did you say common law was based on?"
What I said it was based on was inocent until proven guilty, perhaps I should have been a little more specific, The magna carta, was what I meant sorry to have been so vague.
With particular focus on points about not taking anyone to court with out credible witnesses, plural. 2 or more. Yet every ticket issued is normaly based on one witness the cop. The other witness is the guy whos getting the ticket.
What most people miss is if it is taken to court and you have consented to the ticket, not provide a affadavit in response to the ticket, not asked for evidence of every element of the crime, then the only person who has showed up at the court with sworn evidence is the cop, thats why they win.

No one ever seems to ask for exculpatory evidence, or question wether there was jurisdiction in the first place, people make it easy for the police to win. So all in all what I am saying is know what your rights are or smile and pay the ticket.

And spudchucka, thanks for the extensive common law history. I just use the magna carta. And as you probably know, first in time is best in law.
Would be interested to know if you know what the definition(s) of "name" is from blacks law.
Cheers

[HenryDorsetCase]

I find it amazing, that for some reason NZers try to argue there way out of tickets. You were clearly a danger to the world in general, and need to be taxed to remind you. And if the 65% of money you already part with in taxes was not enough, when you calculate it out the price of the ticket tax you may or may not get will probably be no more than another 1%. While I'm ranting, can anyone explain why when you have been accused of the crime of speeding you never get your rights read to you? Im sure one of them is the right not to self incriminate... and not to make a statement... Thoughts.

no criminal is "read their rights" in New Zealand: you have watched too much US TV: they are called Miranda rights over there after the name of the US Supreme Court case that let some scumbag off cos the crim didnt know what his rights were (remember they HAVE rights guaranteed to them in their constitution, in stark contrast to NZ: we have very few... in fact the NZBORA is the best thing Geoff Palmer did for this country.... but I digress).

From memory all a pleecemin has to say to you is "You're under arrest motherfucker" or words to that effect..... anyone care to elaborate?

[HenryDorsetCase]

"Remain stopped" ? Is this not a form of detention? Also people make the assumption that jurisdiction has been proven. Ask the question, under what jurisdiciton are you being stopped. There is a difference between being a soft target and being aware of your rights. Same again though, for conveniance sake be polite and pay the money. If you do not rebut the assumption that you have no rights then you have no rights.

yeah you have rights (cue the Clash song, and... go), but the pleece also have powers granted them by statute, which has been quoted ad nauseam:

presumably you learned all this stuff during your last lag, but my question for you is:


How many tickets have you gotten off by standing up to the man, and telling him he has no right to detain you: in fact if you are so certain of that, why would you even stop: according to you the plod dont have any more right than I do to make you stop, so why would you.

YOu are, quoting the Clash again "wrong em boyo"

[HenryDorsetCase]

while I am on this, here is a link to the text of the magna Carta:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html

I agree with you its incorporated into NZ law by virtue of the Act that says we got British law as at 1840, it was part of british law then, so its part of our law now:

another question:

How does this justify your belief that you do not have to comply with various later in time statutes?

also, will you travel to christchurch to defend my next speeding fine. If you win I will pay your flights and accommodation, and buy dinner. If I lose, you buy your own plane ticket and buy me dinner.

deal?

PS I particularly like this passage:




No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

[Ixion]

... I just use the magna carta. And as you probably know, first in time is best in law.
Would be interested to know if you know what the definition(s) of "name" is from blacks law.
Cheers

Incorrect. In law LATEST is time is best law. And there is only one ONE clause of the Great Charter that is incorporated in NZ law



29.Imprisonment, etc contrary to law. Administration of justice—

NO freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor [condemn him, * but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

Source: New Zealand Parliamentary Library, International Documents Collection

That;s it. The only bit of Magna Charta that is New Zealand law. I'm not happy at that either. but direct your complaints to OberFuhreur Helen, not me.

[inlinefour]

no maths genius but 70 in a 60 is 10 over aint it?

Would like to think so, although I am told that the Police will lie in court just to make the ticket stick... :weird:

[spudchucka]

Firstly, how is it you get the quotes in there? I am new to this whole chat forum thing.
And as such it is taking a bit of getting used to. So I have yet to figure out how to put your quote before my comment. So have put them in " " for now.Try using the "quote" button at the bottom right of the post you wish to quote. The rest should be self explanitory.


1. My point is according to 107 of the crimes act any breach of a statute is a crime.If you get pulled over and issued a ticket for speeding, (as in the original scenario that started this thread) you have the option of paying an instant fine or defending the ticket in court. If you elect to go to court then an information will be laid and you will be summonsed to court. My question to you is under what section of what act is the carge of "speeding" laid?


2. That makes all stops that you make as a cop pulling someone up because you have the right because they have breached some statute, a criminal jurisdiction.The Crimes Act defines "crime" as being an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment. Indictment means the High Court and jury trials, not the forum for trivial matters relating to minor breaches of traffic regulations. So despite what section 107 says for an offence to be a crime it must be able to be proceeded against by indictment. See the difference?


I meant the District Courts act 1947, section 9 (4) (a)
Section 9 of that act refers to the assignment and rostering of District Court Judges, it has nothing to do with the day to day operation of police.


5. Because you are required to prove your case, any information a cop gets with out your concent is under duress and not admissable as evidence. If as a cop you where required to provide evidence of every element of a claim. You would not be able to meet the quota system and central government would have to consider droping the quota system, and in my opinion let police get back to more policeing and less taxing. As someone else has already pointed out, many moons ago people were summoned to court for all manner of minor offences. A system of instant fines was devised to ease the burden. Any instant fine can still be defended in court if the alleged offender chooses to, that is their right. The police will have to prove all the ingredients of the offence, this is no different in any prosecution.

The police have a common law right to be able to speak to anyone they want to. The person being spoken to is under no obligation to answer any questions. In the case of most traffic offences, they have usually been witnessed by a cop, (eg: speed, not giving way, running a red light, dangerous lane change etc etc etc) all the ingredients of the offence are complete when the offending motorist is pulled over. The actions of a motorist that have been witnessed by a cop are totally admissable in court. Anything said by the offender subsequently may or may not be admissable as evidence, if a person begins to incriminate themselves verbally then they will be cautioned. However, words spoken by the offender are most often irrelevant in traffic prosecutions where the actions have been witnessed by a cop. If they want to make an explanation to the court they have that right also.


What I said it was based on was inocent until proven guilty, perhaps I should have been a little more specific, The magna carta, was what I meant sorry to have been so vague. Briefly, common law is law that is unwritten but is accepted by the courts as if it were written in a statute.

For instance, the police have a common law right to search prisoners pursuant to arrest. This power isn't written in a statute but is accepted by the courts as a common law right and any evidence of offending found as a result of a search pursuant to arrest is totally admissable in court.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation concept of the adversarial justice system that NZ and virtually all other western democracies prescribe to. Minor breaches of traffic regulations can be dealt with by way of instant fine. The alleged offender can accpet the fine or defend it in court. If it is defended the police will still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defendant is successful in establishing reasonable doubt they will not be found guilty.


With particular focus on points about not taking anyone to court with out credible witnesses, plural. 2 or more. Yet every ticket issued is normaly based on one witness the cop. The other witness is the guy whos getting the ticket. Strangely enough cops are usually very credible witnesses.


What most people miss is if it is taken to court and you have consented to the ticket, not provide a affadavit in response to the ticket, not asked for evidence of every element of the crime, then the only person who has showed up at the court with sworn evidence is the cop, thats why they win. Believe it or not they don't always win.

However the ones where people defend themselves usually end with the defendant making a lame plea to the court that its not fair because blah blah blah. You watch the judge / JP listening to it and the whole time you can see them thinking "You poor shmuck, you've just hung yourself".


No one ever seems to ask for exculpatory evidence, or question wether there was jurisdiction in the first place, people make it easy for the police to win. So all in all what I am saying is know what your rights are or smile and pay the ticket.
Exculpate means to prove or state officially that somebody is not guilty of something. Why would you expect the police to provide you with evidence for your own defence? Request disclosure and you will be provide with copies of whatever evidence the police have against you but you can provide your own exculpatory evidence.


And spudchucka, thanks for the extensive common law history. I just use the magna carta. And as you probably know, first in time is best in law.
Would be interested to know if you know what the definition(s) of "name" is from blacks law.
CheersThe Magna Carta is just one OLD imperial law that has some relevance to NZ law today.


Imperial Enactments which are still part of New Zealand Law include:


Magna Carta 1297
Heralded as the beginning of English constitutional law the Magna Carta arose from a revolution by the baronage in 1215, which compelled King John to agree to a comprehensive schedule of liberties, predominantly dealing with the relationship between the Crown and the Church and the Crown and the common people. The Charter also referred to certain matters of individual liberty such as freedom of movement while identifying the concept of "majority rule" in decision making;

Bill of Rights 1688
The passing of the Bill of Rights 1688 was motivated by the desire to settle the succession to the throne. The Bill was founded on the Declaration of Rights and was passed during the reign of William the Orange. The Bill went further than setting out the relationship of the Crown to Parliament in that, in part, it identified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The Bill established the rights of citizens to petition the Crown; declared that the election of members of Parliament should be free and identified the notion of Parliamentary privilege, that freedom of speech in Parliament should not be questioned in any place out of parliament, effectively protecting Member's of Parliament from defamation proceedings

Petition of Right 1628
Petition of Right ensured that the Crown could not levy taxes without the consent of Parliament

Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640, 1679 and 1816
The right to bring a writ of habeas corpus to prevent arbitrary or unlawful detention is still alive today. go to top of page
Statute of Westminster 1931(Imp)

* A law passed after the commencement of the Act, by a Dominion (A "Dominion" referred to those English colonies who were taking steps to establish independence) was not to be invalid on the basis it was repugnant to an Imperial statute or the common law
* Power to pass extra-territorial legislation given to Dominion Parliaments
* Imperial legislation would not extend to a Dominion without the explicit request and consent of that Dominion.

Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 in conjunction with the New Zealand Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947

* Adoption of Statute of Westminster 1931
* Request and consent to Imperial Parliament passing legislation which would enable the New Zealand Parliament to amend and repeal it own constitution
* New Zealand achieving legal autonomy as now having the power to amend, suspend and repeal its own constitution

Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950

* Legislative Council abolished so that New Zealand became a unicameral (one-house) legislature

New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973

However, the most relevant law today is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1995. So I can't agree with the absurd assumption that a enactment of 1297 could have more relevance in law than one written in 1995.

I don't have a copy of Blacks Law and can't be arsed finding one so please enlighten me.

[Ixion]

The Imperial Statutes that form part of NZ law are those that are specified in IMPERIAL LAWS APPLICATION ACT 1988. The schedules in that Act lits the "old" laws that still form part on NZ law. But, in many cases only PARTS of the old laws are incorporated.

As regards 25 Edw 1 , called Magna Carta , only c 29 is included.

The Act also explicitly incorporates thye English Common law into NZ law.


More importantly , for the police, we also inherit part of the Statutes of Westminster 1275



1.For the maintaining of Peace and Justice—





First the King willeth and commandeth, that the peace of Holy Church and of the land, be well kept and maintained in all points, and that common right be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons.



Which is actually the foundation stone of all police authority. To keep and maintain the Queen's Peace.

[number33]

Sorry boys, but all this complicated fairyland bullshit is - BOOOORRIIIING!!!

[Psalm42]

Incorrect. In law LATEST is time is best law. And there is only one ONE clause of the Great Charter that is incorporated in NZ law

If you are correct, why do high court judges make such a big fuss when bringing in the magna carta. In police vs storey for instance, the magna carta and a case relating to it where brought in and used to over rule newer laws.
And why do high court judges accept maxiums of law, quote them, and in latin sometimes. If newer law in better why? In one case the police protested that there was no need to use magna carta, and the judge told them it was there duty to have provided the defence with the appropriate law if it existed. Also a note worth makeing, when the magan carta was used in the storey case, it was not for this section of the MAGNA CARTA 1297 "29.Imprisonment, etc "

Which is why I say know your rights.

[Psalm42]

no criminal is "read their rights" in New Zealand: you have watched too much US TV: they are called Miranda rights over there after the name of the US Supreme Court case that let some scumbag off cos the crim didnt know what his rights were (remember they HAVE rights guaranteed to them in their constitution, in stark contrast to NZ: we have very few... in fact the NZBORA is the best thing Geoff Palmer did for this country.... but I digress).

From memory all a pleecemin has to say to you is "You're under arrest motherfucker" or words to that effect..... anyone care to elaborate?

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

21 Unreasonable search and seizure
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.
Status Compendium
22 Liberty of the person
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
Status Compendium
23 Rights of persons arrested or detained
(1) Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—
(a) Shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and
(b) Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) Shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.
(2) Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.
(3) Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.
(4) Everyone who is—
(a) Arrested; or
(b) Detained under any enactment—
for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

With particular interest to the last part.

[SPman]

Sorry boys, but all this complicated fairyland bullshit is - BOOOORRIIIING!!!
No its not!

[Psalm42]

presumably you learned all this stuff during your last lag, but my question for you is:

Only ever had jet lag. I have learned to question peoples presumptions though.



How many tickets have you gotten off by standing up to the man, and telling him he has no right to detain you: in fact if you are so certain of that, why would you even stop: according to you the plod dont have any more right than I do to make you stop, so why would you.

7 times, and I stop because I dont want to have a simple traffic stop blow up into me getting shot/run over/beaten etc. I have not said that one should not be curtious, or polite, what am saying is know your rights and be willing to stand up for them or smile and pay. Asking a few simple and harmless questions of the man detaining you is all, and given you have the right to be informed, whats the harm in that. When a cop reacts by getting angry, just ask why someone is getting angry over some simple questions, it not like your accusing him of beating his wife.

[Psalm42]

another question:

How does this justify your belief that you do not have to comply with various later in time statutes?

also, will you travel to christchurch to defend my next speeding fine. If you win I will pay your flights and accommodation, and buy dinner. If I lose, you buy your own plane ticket and buy me dinner.

deal?



I do not believe I said do not comply with a statute that applies to you, what I am trying to point out is do not make the presumption that it does. Make anyone who accuses you of breaching a statute prove it, every point of it.

Now, if you are genuinely interested, I am happy to forward you a line of questions to ask at your next traffic case. I will not represent anyone in court, if people are not willing to learn what they need to do to defend themselves then they should smile and pay the tickets. If the questions help with your ticket, I am happy to have you buy me dinner next time Im in chch, if they dont help, I will buy you dinner next time Im in chch.

[Jackrat]

No its not!

Fan of Monty Python too huh ??

[Psalm42]

My question to you is under what section of what act is the carge of "speeding" laid?

Clearly a traffic act, What my question to you is "As the crimes act under 107 makes any contrivention of a statute a crime, why do you not get your rights read to you?



The Crimes Act defines "crime" as being an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment. Indictment means the High Court and jury trials, not the forum for trivial matters relating to minor breaches of traffic regulations. So despite what section 107 says for an offence to be a crime it must be able to be proceeded against by indictment. See the difference?

I see a difference, I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime. I agree the trivial traffic statute would not be indictable if 107 did not exist. After all statute is what creates alot of the crimes, take the blood alcohol limit as a prime example, 600 to 400 wasnt it. Write a piece of statute and magicly there are new taxable class of criminals.



Section 9 of that act refers to the assignment and rostering of District Court Judges, it has nothing to do with the day to day operation of police.


It refers to the jurisdiction of the judge, and therefor the courts, and any other subserviants. My point about section 9 was what jurisdiction are traffic cases held under at the district court?



As someone else has already pointed out, many moons ago people were summoned to court for all manner of minor offences. A system of instant fines was devised to ease the burden. Any instant fine can still be defended in court if the alleged offender chooses to, that is their right. The police will have to prove all the ingredients of the offence, this is no different in any prosecution.

If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage. When the police write a guy a ticket for 10 over the limit, or lane spliting, or passing on the inside, or worse passing on the inside in a traffic jam, whos the victim ? Can a guy writing a ticket be considered non bias when his employer is getting the profits from the ticket he is issuing.



Anything said by the offender subsequently may or may not be admissable as evidence, if a person begins to incriminate themselves verbally then they will be cautioned.

I wonder if the guy that started this thread got warned about this incriminating issue when the cop asked him how fast he was going?
If the cop had enough evidence why ask, or was he fishing.



"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation concept of the adversarial justice system that NZ and virtually all other western democracies prescribe to. Minor breaches of traffic regulations can be dealt with by way of instant fine. The alleged offender can accpet the fine or defend it in court. If it is defended the police will still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defendant is successful in establishing reasonable doubt they will not be found guilty.

Would you or anyone else on this forum be able to explain why on the ticket it is an alleged offence, but if you choose to pay or argue it in court, you find on the back of the ticket it is an offence. Please take notice the word alleged is no longer there. It would appear that you by paying or argueing accept it was not an allegation but a fact.



Strangely enough cops are usually very credible witnesses.


The opposite of that is why I started studying law, should have done something about my spelling to now that I think about it.



Believe it or not they don't always win.


They win even less often if the right questions are asked.



However the ones where people defend themselves usually end with the defendant making a lame plea to the court that its not fair because blah blah blah. You watch the judge / JP listening to it and the whole time you can see them thinking "You poor shmuck, you've just hung yourself".


Your right, yet if they knew there rights and understand the jurisdiction of the court they have a better chance. The worst part is how often a judge starts asking questions of the defendant for the prosicution. And he is meant to be imparcial.



Exculpate means to prove or state officially that somebody is not guilty of something. Why would you expect the police to provide you with evidence for your own defence? Request disclosure and you will be provide with copies of whatever evidence the police have against you but you can provide your own exculpatory evidence.

By law if the lawyers for the police have anything in there possetion that will benefit a self litigant they are obliged to supply it.



However, the most relevant law today is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1995. So I can't agree with the absurd assumption that a enactment of 1297 could have more relevance in law than one written in 1995.


I think the NZBOR act was 1990, I could be wrong. I like the fact that you are not willing to agree with an assumption, however absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, after all everyone is someone elses weirdo. If someone feels that a police officers absurd assumption that a statute applies with out the office having provided the factual evidence to back his assumption, would that make the officer wrong?



I don't have a copy of Blacks Law and can't be arsed finding one so please enlighten me.

I asked this question for two reasons, as "name" nor "person" is not defined in the traffic act you quoted, I thought you may be able to tell me which act is used as reference for it. Name in the blacks law dictionary has 11 different meanings. Person however is found in a number of different acts, Im guessing you know which act prevails if a definition of Person is not found in the traffic statutes. Crimes act perhaps.

Thanks for telling me how to do the quotes, Makes things much easyer.

[spudchucka]

What my question to you is "As the crimes act under 107 makes any contrivention of a statute a crime, why do you not get your rights read to you?Has an offence punishable by imprisonment been committed?


I see a difference, I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime.A statute isn't a crime, it is an act of parliament. A crime is an offence punishable by imprisonment that can be proceeded against by indictment.


I agree the trivial traffic statute would not be indictable if 107 did not exist.Certain traffic offences are indictable, speeding is not.


take the blood alcohol limit as a prime example, 600 to 400 wasnt it. Write a piece of statute and magicly there are new taxable class of criminals. The limit has always been 400. Until a few years ago a breath reading of 600+ was considered a conclusive test and the option of the defendant requesting a blood test was not available. Parliament changed this by removing the 600+ conclusive test, now any drunken fool can request a blood test even when they can barely stand up.


It refers to the jurisdiction of the judge, and therefor the courts, and any other subserviants. My point about section 9 was what jurisdiction are traffic cases held under at the district court?
The purpose of that act is written as follows:

An Act to consolidate and amend certain enactments of the [Parliament of New Zealand] relating to [District Courts] and the jurisdiction of [District Court Judges] in civil proceedings, and to make provision for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction under the [Summary Proceedings Act 1957] in [District Courts]

Section 9 is titled as follows:

Assignment and rostering of District Court Judges—

The district court is the lowest court. Most minor traffic matters that are defended are heard in the district court before JP's.

This is a pointless point, if you get my point.


If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage.Right, just like breaches of the public peace, disorderly behaviour, drug abuse and drink driving. By your version of the common law none of these are offences untill there is a victim.


Can a guy writing a ticket be considered non bias when his employer is getting the profits from the ticket he is issuing. Utter crap that isn't worthy of a response.


I wonder if the guy that started this thread got warned about this incriminating issue when the cop asked him how fast he was going?
If the cop had enough evidence why ask, or was he fishing. Maybe he was fisshing, we'll never know but that won't stop people from making their own assumptions.

The only time I ask someone what their speed was is when I either have no idea but know they were hoofing it and I'm just going to chew their ear; or, when I have tailed someone over a certain distance and am quite satisfied what their speed was but ask them for their version, there-upon entering into a negotiation as to what might be a reasonable speed to go on the ticket. If they don't want to negotiate then the ticket is for the speed I had assessed in the first place.



Would you or anyone else on this forum be able to explain why on the ticket it is an alleged offence, but if you choose to pay or argue it in court, you find on the back of the ticket it is an offence. Please take notice the word alleged is no longer there. It would appear that you by paying or argueing accept it was not an allegation but a fact.
You answered your own question. When a cop gives you a traffic ticket they allege you have committed that offence. You as the defendant have the option of accepting liability for that offence by paying the fine or denying the offence and defend it in court. Until you the defendant take up one of those options the offence is simply an alleged offence.


They win even less often if the right questions are asked. Only if the cop doesn't do their job properly. Thorough investigators seldom loose cases to bush lawyers.


By law if the lawyers for the police have anything in there possetion that will benefit a self litigant they are obliged to supply it.They disclose everything relative to the case. Police know that if they fail to disclose all relevant information they will likley lose the case so it is done routinely.


I think the NZBOR act was 1990, I could be wrong. My mistake.


I like the fact that you are not willing to agree with an assumption, however absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, after all everyone is someone elses weirdo. If someone feels that a police officers absurd assumption that a statute applies with out the office having provided the factual evidence to back his assumption, would that make the officer wrong?You're not making much sense?? If the cop is wrong then he's wrong. A weirdo is a weirdo and I've seen more than my share so can spot them pretty easily most of the time.


I asked this question for two reasons, as "name" nor "person" is not defined in the traffic act you quoted, I thought you may be able to tell me which act is used as reference for it. Name in the blacks law dictionary has 11 different meanings. Person however is found in a number of different acts, Im guessing you know which act prevails if a definition of Person is not found in the traffic statutes. Crimes act perhaps.
No!

If a specific word does not feature in the interpretation section of an act then the common or ordinary meaning is taken as being the correct definition. This is usually found in a "Dictionary". Oxford seems to be the most widely used version, I'd recommend obtaining a copy.

Other acts are also referenced for interpretation and definitions of words if the common meaning is ambiguous.


Thanks for telling me how to do the quotes, Makes things much easyer.No problem. It certainly does make things EASIER. As stated above, Oxford is a fine volume.

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Psalm42
If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage.

Right, just like breaches of the public peace, disorderly behaviour, drug abuse and drink driving. By your version of the common law none of these are offences untill there is a victim.


Victim (wronged party) is only in civil law - a tort. Criminal law needs no victim, the breach of the Queen's Peace, or contravention of the statute is enough.

[Psalm42]

Victim (wronged party) is only in civil law - a tort. Criminal law needs no victim, the breach of the Queen's Peace, or contravention of the statute is enough.

Your not sugesting contravention of a statute is a crime are you???

[Ixion]

Your not sugesting contravention of a statute is a crime are you???

If the statute says that contravention of it is a crime, yes. Circular argument: a crime is what is declared to be a crime. As opposed to a civil matter. Like a tort.

[Psalm42]

Could some one anwser this question.

Which jurisdiction (CIVIL OR CRIMINAL) are traffic cases held under at the district court?

Also in one of my last posts I made an error, I said
"I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime."

Should have read:
I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes contravention of that trivial traffic statute a crime.

In the construction of statute legal meanings have first preference after the interpretations section of the act the word is in, then the interpretations act or a previous interpretations act depending on the date of the act the word is in.
An example would be the 1998 land transport act. If a meaning from that act is not defined then the next act to check would be the Acts interpretation act 1924. Because in that act section 3 if memory serves, it states the meanings apply in any act written after it and there is no need for the newer act to make reference to the 1924 interpretations act.

If a oxford dictionary is sufice to interpret legislation can anyone tell me why blacks law dictionaries are used by the people who write the NZ legislation.

Also in a court when it was pointed out a particular word was not defined in an act and therefore the oxford meaning must apply, the judge said no, that the strict legal definition applies.

And not forgeting one of the founding rules taught at law school is if something can be enterpreted 2 or more ways it is to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.




A statute isn't a crime, it is an act of parliament. A crime is an offence punishable by imprisonment that can be proceeded against by indictment.


I agree, a contravention of a statute is however a crime.



You answered your own question. When a cop gives you a traffic ticket they allege you have committed that offence. You as the defendant have the option of accepting liability for that offence by paying the fine or denying the offence and defend it in court. Until you the defendant take up one of those options the offence is simply an alleged offence.


It should always read alledged offence until one has been proven guilty. If someone leaves it as an allegation, and the only way to do that would appear to be "not pay, and not defend it" then after 28 days they get a reminder notice, is the reminder notice a reminder of an Alledged offence or of an offence? Could someone who has got one let me know.



Thorough investigators seldom loose cases to bush lawyers.


I agree, however I am aware of at least 3 times when the judge gave the prosacutor the option to withdraw there case because from where I sat it appeared they were losing, by giving them that option there was no ruling and therefore no reported loss to a self litigant.

I often wonder how many times that sort of thing goes on and its not reported.

I used the drink driving legislation as an example because I thought it would be easy to get the point across. Perhaps I should have used the 80 to 100km change as an example instead. Same point none the less.

[avgas]

I know its simple math here, but....
if you were doing 70 he would have to do atleast 80+ to catch you, most likely 100+ if he had to accellerate even for 10-20 secs.

[spudchucka]

Could some one anwser this question.

Which jurisdiction (CIVIL OR CRIMINAL) are traffic cases held under at the district court?All manner of offences and crimes are heard before the district court. Your point is meaningess, there is no lower court.


Should have read:
I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes contravention of that trivial traffic statute a crime.Depends how crime is defined.

Is someone who breaches the Railways Act 2005, Section 73(1)(a) by planting a tree or shrub on the railway infrastructure or railway premises a criminal?


In the construction of statute legal meanings have first preference after the interpretations section of the act the word is in, then the interpretations act or a previous interpretations act depending on the date of the act the word is in. With words such as "person" or "name" as you earlier alluded to the ordinary meaning is used unless the word is given a clear definition in the interpretation. Such as the definition of person in the Crimes Act:


``Person'', ``owner'', and other words and expressions of the like kind, include the Crown and any public body or local authority, and any board, society, or company, and any other body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and the inhabitants of the district of any local authority, in relation to such acts and things as it or they are capable of doing or owning:

It is just plain stupid to suggest that such a definition could hold relevance when dealing with an individual over an offence against the Land Transport Act. Therefore the ordinary meaning would be adopted unless there was a relevant definition within another enactment that was contextually correct in relation to the Act and Section in question.


An example would be the 1998 land transport act. If a meaning from that act is not defined then the next act to check would be the Acts interpretation act 1924. Because in that act section 3 if memory serves, it states the meanings apply in any act written after it and there is no need for the newer act to make reference to the 1924 interpretations act.
You're probably thinking of section 4.


4.Application—

(1)This Act applies to an enactment that is part of the law of New Zealand and that is passed either before or after the commencement of this Act unless—

(a)The enactment provides otherwise; or

(b)The context of the enactment requires a different interpretation.

(2)The provisions of this Act also apply to the interpretation of this Act.


If you look in schedule two of that act you will find a list of acts that are repealed. Top of the list is, you guessed it;


1924, No 11—The Acts Interpretation Act 1924. (RS Vol 31, p 1.)


If a oxford dictionary is sufice to interpret legislation can anyone tell me why blacks law dictionaries are used by the people who write the NZ legislation. You are missing the point. A point that you raised in the first place by refering to the definition of "person" and "name" within blacks law. A dictionary is used to determine definitions of words within legislation when there is no clear definition within the interpretation section of an act and when other definitions of the same word used in other acts is ambiguous or irrelevant to the act in question.

The interpretation of legislation is a much more complex issue than understanding the meanings of a few words.


Also in a court when it was pointed out a particular word was not defined in an act and therefore the oxford meaning must apply, the judge said no, that the strict legal definition applies. Nobody says the Oxford meaning must apply. If there are clear definitions within law that apply in the circumstances then that is the definition that will be applied. The meanings of words also has to be determined within the context of the section and the purpose of the act, which will result in the definitions of certain words within some acts having no relevance within the context of other acts.


I agree, a contravention of a statute is however a crime. I've made my point in relation to this. If you want to label someone who plants a shrub near a railway line a criminal I guess thats your business.


It should always read alledged offence until one has been proven guilty. If someone leaves it as an allegation, and the only way to do that would appear to be "not pay, and not defend it" then after 28 days they get a reminder notice, is the reminder notice a reminder of an Alledged offence or of an offence? Could someone who has got one let me know.
You seem to be getting upset over the omission of the word "alleged" from traffic tickets and reminder notices. I wouldn't know if a reminder notice has that word on it or not but I'm sure that the section of a traffic ticket where the speed is written says, "alleged speed". Either way you seem to be nit-picking a very minor point.


I agree, however I am aware of at least 3 times when the judge gave the prosacutor the option to withdraw there case because from where I sat it appeared they were losing, by giving them that option there was no ruling and therefore no reported loss to a self litigant.These days the courts have what are called Status Hearings. Generally what happens is that there is a relatively informal hearing between the judge, police prosecutor, defence counsel and defendant. All the prosecution and defence evidence is put to the judge and if the judge thinks that there is no case to answer or that the police case is too weak to proceed then he will advise the police that withdrawal may be a wise option. Equally, where a defendant is wasting the courts time by defending a charge that he / she is clearly guilty of the judge will advise the defence counsel that an early guilty plea may be in their clients best interest. Very few weak cases go beyond status hearing becasue like everybody else the police do not have the time or resources to flog a dead horse just for the sake of it.


I often wonder how many times that sort of thing goes on and its not reported. Status hearings happen all the time. They are a regulary function of the courts.


I used the drink driving legislation as an example because I thought it would be easy to get the point across. Perhaps I should have used the 80 to 100km change as an example instead. Same point none the less.You aren't really making a point as far as I can see. You are just stating the obvious. Parliament can pass laws at any time that over-ride or supercede previous laws. That is a parliamentary function. You employ them to do that for you.

[Psalm42]

In the hope of keeping things shorter, I will only cover a few things at a time.

1.


All manner of offences and crimes are heard before the district court. Your point is meaningess, there is no lower court.


I did not ask if there is a lower court, I asked which jurisdiction, Civil or Criminal are traffic issues held under, to be even more specific if you like, speeding tickets of 20ks over the limit or less. If you dont know, just say so, no harm no foul.

2.

What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?

3.



You're probably thinking of section 4.


I wasnt. I was thinking of this: Acts interpretation act 1924.
3 Declaration That Act Applies Unnecessary (Repealed)
It shall not be necessary to insert in any Act a declaration that this Act applies thereto in order to make it so apply.

You may have missed section 7 of the act you quoted though.
Interpretation act 1999.
7 Enactments do not have retrospective effect
An enactment does not have retrospective effect.

Also you may consider reading the section on repeals 17 on to 25 I think.

4.


The interpretation of legislation is a much more complex issue than understanding the meanings of a few words.


Your quite correct, it is a matter of understanding the Jurisdiction the legislation is to be enforced under, the meanings of all the components that make it up not just the words, Knowing wether or not the legislation applies to you, wether or not mens rea is a componant if it does apply to you and not just actus reas. Wether it specificaly makes reference that mens rea is not a nececary componant to prove for a conviction/charge/offence to apply etc.

If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation. The most important would have to be what jurisdiction.

I have found asking simple questions like that very effective. No drama in not knowing, Ive meet lawyers in the court room that didnt know, I must admit they didnt like having a judge confirm that the bush lawyer (as you put it) was right about jurisdiction though.

[civil]

Interesting discussion.

How often do we ask questions with respect to that we are taught or conditioned to take for granted.

For instance IF this is a free country, then why do I behave like a slave and submit without question to the bully in the blue uniform?

What difference is there between him and his gang of patched bullies, and that of some other patched members of the various 'clubs' that are around? Could it just be the size of the gang?

I have found that if you dont question and challenge the presumptions we live under, then you are in fact a slave. In which case do as psalm42 suggests

for conveniance sake be polite and pay the money

[spudchucka]

I did not ask if there is a lower court, I asked which jurisdiction, Civil or Criminal are traffic issues held under, to be even more specific if you like, speeding tickets of 20ks over the limit or less. If you dont know, just say so, no harm no foul. A defended speeding ticket is heard in the district court, usually before two JP's. We all know that. The point you are trying desperately to make is that because a speeding ticket is heard before the district court, under the criminal jurisdiction, that alone must make speeding a crime.


What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.


An enactment does not have retrospective effect.Generally means that the passing of new legislation does not allow for criminal procedings to take place against acts or ommissions that were not offences prior to the new act being passed.

Section 26 of the NZBORA also refers.

It isn't a rule written in blood however, retrospective acts are still passed.


Also you may consider reading the section on repeals 17 on to 25 I think.I did.


Your quite correct, it is a matter of understanding the Jurisdiction the legislation is to be enforced underWhat is your point in pursuing this arguement. Hurry up and make it because I'm losing interest quickly. Anyone with half a brain knows that if you go to court on a minor traffic charge you will end up in the district court. What did you think before you gained this allmighty knowledge? That it would be heard in the public bar of the local boozer?


Knowing wether or not the legislation applies to you, wether or not mens rea is a componant if it does apply to you and not just actus reas. Wether it specificaly makes reference that mens rea is not a nececary componant to prove for a conviction/charge/offence to apply etc.
The thread was originally about speeding. Mens Rea would generally only be in issue if the offence lead to a reckless driving charge.


If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation. Jeepers, all this time and I never knew what legislation applies when I pull over a motorist. I must have missed that class at the cop college, perhaps the doughnuts were extra crispy in the canteen that day and I stayed behind for thirds.


The most important would have to be what jurisdiction. No.


No drama in not knowing, Ive meet lawyers in the court room that didnt know, I must admit they didnt like having a judge confirm that the bush lawyer (as you put it) was right about jurisdiction though.Hey, good on ya for being a clever dick and scoring a few points. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this though. Its like stating the obvious and expecting people to go WOW like you've discovered the cure for cancer.

[civil]

Here is what I mean by questioning the presumptions we live under;


The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.

Tell me what the difference is to this;

A couple of wolves are sitting around the club house down in Wellington discussing what they are going to have for dinner. They decide to have chicken and write their order down on a piece of paper called an "Act". This 'Act' is then send it out around the country and to all the patched members.

Spudchucka, who happens to be an 'enforcer' of the gang sees a chicken riding his bike across the road, and so goes over and grabs the chicken. Being the good diligent enforcer who does just as he is told, Spudchucka delivers the chicken to the club house kitchen which then plucks and prepares the poor chicken ready for the wolves dinner.

Did the chicken consent to being the wolves dinner, or did Supdchucka just presume that the chicken was a member of the club? It is all a matter of Jurisdiction.

[spudchucka]

Tell me what the difference is to this;
The really important difference in your scenario, one that you will likely never come to terms with, is that the chicken scenario was written by a half wit.

[Ixion]

..
Did the chicken consent to being the wolves dinner, or did Supdchucka just presume that the chicken was a member of the club? It is all a matter of Jurisdiction.

If you are living in NZ you are subject to the jurisdiction of her Majesty the Queen - and thus to the NZ police. Don't like it, leave the country.


This thread has gone wrong in so many ways, that I don't know where to begin. So I won't. I'll just summarise.

The reason you are not cautioned when stopped for speeding is that you are only cautioned (not "read your rights" - that's USA - here you have no such rights), if the police arrest you. Being stopped for speeding is not an arrest. They are stopping you under a law that allows them to stop you and detain you for a reasonable period WITHOUT arresting you. Therefore, no caution.

That's the law. Simple, end of story.

[Lou Girardin]

What is abundantly clear from this thread is that most people do not know how to read legislation.

[M1CRO]

What is abundantly clear from this thread is that most people do not know how to read legislation.
Or they just enjoy general 'shite' stirring :yes:

[spudchucka]

The reason you are not cautioned when stopped for speeding is that you are only cautioned (not "read your rights" - that's USA - here you have no such rights), if the police arrest you.
Not quite right.

Once a cop forms good cause to suspect an offence punishable by imprisonment has been committed they will caution the person being spoken to.

"You're not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, anything that you do say can be given as evidence".

Upon arresting, or detaining the person pursuant to an enactment, (Land Transport breath alcohol, Misuse of Drugs search etc etc) the cop will read them their rights pursuant to the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

"You have the right to refrain from making a statement and you have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private".

"You will be given that right as soon as practicable".

Most cops will conclude by asking the person;

"Do you understand"?

[Ixion]

Correction noted - thanks.

Main point was, none of this applies to being stopped for speeding. Which is neither an imprisionable, nor an arrestable offence. (normallY)

S114 allows a cop to stop and detain a person WITHOUT suspicion of an imprisionable offence or making an arrest . I think (it's hard to tell now!) that teh original bone of contention was why someone was not cautioned when stopped for speeding. So the "safeguards' do not apply.

The same of course goes for great wads of other non-motoriung offences. Fail to put in a tax return, and you'll get an "instant fine". No question of being cautioned. Lots and lots of others.

[civil]

the chicken scenario was written by a half wit

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!:doh:

At cop school do they have a specfic class on 'dumbing down to provide blind obedience', or is it general condition of acceptance into cop school?


If you are living in NZ you are subject to the jurisdiction of her Majesty the Queen - and thus to the NZ police. Don't like it, leave the country.

Apart from the theat of violence, just what makes you THINK that you have greater rights over this turf than any other patched gang, or individual for that matter? Do you equate violence with meaning rights?

[Ixion]

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!:doh:

At cop school do they have a specfic class on 'dumbing down to provide blind obedience', or is it general condition of acceptance into cop school?



Apart from the theat of violence, just what makes you THINK that you have greater rights over this turf than any other patched gang, or individual for that matter? Do you equate violence with meaning rights?

WTF. What ARE you on about. You said "It is all a matter of jurisdiction". Everyone who lives in NZ (and visitors for that matter) is subject to HM's jurisdiction - exercised through the police , who hold her warrant to do so. Which is what I said. Where on earth do you get threats of violence, or patched gang memebrs out of this? Try some dried frog pills, mate, they work a treat for the Bursar when he has similar problems.

[roogazza]

Well thats where you could be wrong. According to the interpretations, detention means arrest. What you are never told is you are being detained. Just make your first question, before they say anything "why am I being detained" You will be told your not being detained, in which case you say, in that case Im off have a good day, at which time you will very possibly be told if you go you will be done for resisting arrest. How can you be done for resisting arrest if you have not been told your are under arrest? Ignorrance of the law is no excuse. If you do not know being detained is arrest thats your tough nuts.

By all means if you are keen on becoming a lawyer or a Policeman do so, but from reading "your" interpretations you have some study to do !
Spudchucker has answered all your questions, even I understood !
Speeding is an offence not a crime and detained is detained !
If you have been arrested you will be told ! then if you resist you will be done for that too, easy peesy...... G.

[civil]

Everyone who lives in NZ (and visitors for that matter) is subject to HM's jurisdiction - exercised through the police , who hold her warrant to do so.

Really!! Do you have any evidence to support this presumption about jurisdiction you have been told, and obviously now believe? Or would you just prefer to get Spudchucka to inflict violence on those who do not accept the presumption you hold on to!!

I'd rather not take a pill, as I prefer to keep a clear head to actually think for myself about what is going on, not just accept what I am told.

[Lou Girardin]

Really!! Do you have any evidence to support this presumption about jurisdiction you have been told, and obviously now believe? Or would you just prefer to get Spudchucka to inflict violence on those who do not accept the presumption you hold on to!!

I'd rather not take a pill, as I prefer to keep a clear head to actually think for myself about what is going on, not just accept what I am told.

You're quite right. It is all an imperialist plot to subvert the true constitution of Aotearoa - Tinorangitiratanga.
Right on Brother!

[Psalm42]

Thanks for answering some of my questions spudchucka, I do appreciate it, and I thank you for your patients with me to this point.


A defended speeding ticket is heard in the district court, usually before two JP's. We all know that. The point you are trying desperately to make is that because a speeding ticket is heard before the district court, under the criminal jurisdiction, that alone must make speeding a crime.

I'm only using it as an example for a couple of things actually. One of Presumption, and the other what the result is of asking a simple question.

I do take note you still have not given a simple answer to the " What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?

Your answer being.


The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.

Incase anyone has missed it, this is not a jurisdiction, it is a piece of legislation. And I'm not arguing whether or not it exists, I'm asking under what jurisdictional authority is it enforced.

It would appear from my point of view that it is you who is desperately trying to avoid answering that question.

My next point was:
If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation.
The most important would have to be what jurisdiction.

Your answer was "No"!

What is the most important thing that a cop must understand if its not what jurisdictional authority he/she's authority is based from, I am genuinely interested to know.


To the point as you ask. Presumption...

Crimes act.
5 Application of Act
(1) This Act applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand.
(2) This Act applies to all acts done or omitted in New Zealand.

Offence means any act or omission for which any one can be punished under this Act or under any other enactment, whether on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction:

So let me get this straight. If I argue a speeding ticket in district court, and loose (which you no doubt are certain of), I would not be convicted and I would not be expected to pay as punishment?

traffic offence includes—
(a) any offence against the Land Transport Act 1998, the Transport Act 1962, the Transport Act 1949, the Motor Vehicles Act 1924, the Motor Regulation Act 1908, or against any regulation, rule, or bylaw made under any of those Acts; and


Regardless of what I believe, this appears to lead to the presumption that speeding is under criminal jurisdiction. I'm not saying its true I'm just pointing out what the facts point to.

Or another argument in relation to my question Why do you not have your rights read to you, Would be this:



This is usually found in a "Dictionary". Oxford seems to be the most widely used version, I'd recommend obtaining a copy.


A dictionary is suffice to get a definition if its not in the act. Excellent. Here in the bill of rights you will see two words not so defined.
Detain and offence, so heres my dictionary says:

Detain: to restrain or delay; to hold in custody (I think most will agree being stopped on the road side by a cop is a Delay)

Offence: a violation as of custom or law. (I think most will agree breaching section 114 of LTA1998 is a violation of law).

Bill of Rights.
23 Rights of persons arrested or detained

(4) Everyone who is—
(a) Arrested; or
(b) Detained under any enactment—
for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

Now I know someone is going to come back with some reason, that holding someone on the side of the road under 114 is not delaying them and not an offence as per the BORA.
I set this out as per Spudchuckers instructions, if its not defined in the act the ordinary dictionary meaning apply.


But if you want to say the definition of "offence" from the BORA comes from another act, it goes with the logical conclusion that since that section of BORA is reference to Arrest, that the crimes act definition would apply. And that is: offence means any act or omission for which any one can be punished under this Act or under any other enactment,



What did you think before you gained this allmighty knowledge? That it would be heard in the public bar of the local boozer?

No, that it would be held under the common law equity jurisdiction of the court. Where your "Innocent until proven guilty" would reign, not what it has turned out to be, guilty till you prove your self innocent.



Jeepers, all this time and I never knew what legislation applies when I pull over a motorist. I must have missed that class at the cop college, perhaps the doughnuts were extra crispy in the canteen that day and I stayed behind for thirds.


Hey, good on ya for being a clever dick and scoring a few points. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this though. Its like stating the obvious and expecting people to go WOW like you've discovered the cure for cancer.


And in closing, since it appears you have a good sense of humor Spudchuka, I will follow your lead with the whole sarcasm motif.

WHAT, You guys had a whole day of learning how to understand the complexed application of legislation at your 3 month stint at donut eating school? I'm truly shocked, I thought it would have only been an hour long course, interpretation of legislation being so simple and all.

Regards.

[Psalm42]

You're quite right. It is all an imperialist plot to subvert the true constitution of Aotearoa - Tinorangitiratanga.
Right on Brother!

Wow, and I thought I was stiring by asking jurisdictional questions, didnt even think of going to the constitution.......:rofl: Have you been to Australia to read the NZ constitution???????http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif
:rofl:

[spudchucka]

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!:doh:
Jeepers, that was trump card you played there,. I bet nobody has ever seen that before on a forum.

The label fits you so get used to it.

[spudchucka]

Psalm42.

I got through about half of what you wrote but I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.

Section 114 prescribes a "power" upon police to stop vehicles. The act "requires" the driver to remained stopped. They are not "detained" until either "arrested" or "required to accompany" for breath screening tests. At which point they will be cautioned and read their rights.

[Neo 1]

I got through about half of what you wrote but I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.


Section 114 prescribes a "power" upon police to stop vehicles. The act "requires" the driver to remained stopped. They are not "detained" until either "arrested" or "required to accompany" for breath screening tests. At which point they will be cautioned and read their rights.
__________________
Whats your QID?

Is this a civil or criminal matter?
civil as betwen citizens or criminal as between the citizen and the "state".
If civil is it under the jurisdiction known as Common law [ which requires an injured party "living" not a legal fiction eg "the State" or a CONTRACT,
;or Equity which does not need a contract as such or even a living party eg a Trust either implied; or constructive,; or

Is it Admiralty, for which there would have to be a valid international maritime contract or commercial agreement.

There are ONLY 3 jurisdictions, and, they all stem from the Royal Law; hence the badge/mark on the top of a police hat; and that is why police have to remove their hat /authority in court, as they would be in posession of the court room and not the "judge"

I got pulled over on a 114 and when I asked the officer in what capacity he was acting he would not give a straight answer.
But then I have chosen to know the law
When was the last time you were in New Zealand or should I say in your gas tank [which of course sounds ridiculous]
I am on the earth at a place commonly known as New Zealand not in it.

Law is all about words and the deadly use thereof. Don't use your words loosly.lNow back to the beginning..
Problems are:
1. he's not a traffic cop
2. he had no radar to check my speed with
3. I never agreed with him on speed as when he asked a second time he disputed my claim of 70ish but told me that the ticket would be for 20 over.
4. Its nothing to do with my speed if he chose to gun it to catch me.....he might have waited 30 seconds before taking chase. I which case he would have had to do 100+ to catch up.

Will this stand up and will he be able to send me a ticket?
Although he wasn't too bad of a guy........for once.
i
Was he wearing a uniform? which is the Hat with badge ; or Badge?
What documentation did he provide to show that his speedo had been certified and when?
Never traverse/ argue the facts as there are none; its his opinion.
If you want to beat the ticket ; you can.
The proviso is that you have to know what to do and be prepared to learn
Its not hard to extend a court case for at least a year before it is heard.

[spudchucka]

Whats your QID?
None of your business.

Other than this your post was next to impossible to make sense of. It looks as if it is just a cut and paste from various other posts within the thread.

If you are going to quote others and then comment try to use the quote function, (bottom right side of the post you want to quote from). Otherwise its just a garbled mess like your first post.

[civil]

Another common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason, is to try and dismiss the argument. Now where have we seen that occur lately?, thats right I remember where;


I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.

By the way Spudchucka, all because every one around you seems to be doing it, does not make an action valid. Even if you are getting paid for it!!

As it seems to be common trait amongst the bully boys in blue, it does make me think that lack of reason must be an entry criteria to that club. Resorting to violence is a much simpler way to force your will upon others. Never mind about little things like Jurisdiction, as that is just way too hard to understand, except for those who go looking for it!

[Neo 1]

None of your business.

Other than this your post was next to impossible to make sense of. It looks as if it is just a cut and paste from various other posts within the thread.

If you are going to quote others and then comment try to use the quote function, (bottom right side of the post you want to quote from). Otherwise its just a garbled mess like your first post.


You seem to understand the term QID

And yet you have great difficulty in being plain about the jurisdiction that is being applied at a sec.114 "traffic" stop; or for that matter any "police" action.

And what does Halsburys' laws of England say about "penal" statutes..
that they are to be strictly construed.

Perhaps you should ask a judge or even the High Court Registrar, they will tell you off the record the jurisdiction that is being applied.

Perhaps if a few people back in 1938 had asked the relevant questions before exerting the force. Are you going to follow a piece of paper with words written on it; without cheching if it is Lawful as opposed to "legal" [ given that it was legal in the Germany of '38 to discriminate and exterminate.

[KLOWN]

Bollocks??? He follows you for a distance of approx 250 metres or more at whatever speed you are doing, or at a constant speed while you pull away...certified speedo is viewed and the speed the patrol is doing is what you get done for. If you think he is going to stop you for no reason and just come up with a number well....dream on.

Here's where dreams become reality: One night after work i went for a fun drive in my mini when i saw the red and blue flashing lights in my rear view so i pulled over. The cop got out and was pissed off, big time, apparently he had spent the last ten minutes trying to catch up to me ( i was going pretty fast, even for a mini :lol: ) and he said to me "I'm gonna make up some tickets because i couldn't get u on the radar and i'm gonna try and break the $1000 mark. Also if you try and take it to court I reckon I could make a real good case for dangerous driving" ended being $1200 and there was nothing i could do cause i don't have a good driving record and i didn't want the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

[Psalm42]

Here's where dreams become reality: One night after work i went for a fun drive in my mini when i saw the red and blue flashing lights in my rear view so i pulled over. The cop got out and was pissed off, big time, apparently he had spent the last ten minutes trying to catch up to me ( i was going pretty fast, even for a mini :lol: ) and he said to me "I'm gonna make up some tickets because i couldn't get u on the radar and i'm gonna try and break the $1000 mark. Also if you try and take it to court I reckon I could make a real good case for dangerous driving" ended being $1200 and there was nothing i could do cause i don't have a good driving record and i didn't want the more serious charge of dangerous driving.


For future reference KLOWN, carry a dictorphone, or mp3 that records with you, if you want to go all the way have one that is charged from the cig ligther.
Wait till the cop starts to threaten you, then tell him "oh, am I meant to inform you this conversation is being recorded?"
Then watch for the big atitude change...Works a treat with IRD too. They are so much more helpful when they know they wont be able to pull the memory problems in court. Like being able to remember exactly what words they used to enform you what law your breaking but having no recall of the words used insulting you, or threatening you, or that they even did insult or threaten. Pulling out a recording at court realy helps their memory.
Or as another on this site has pointed out, at a status hearing. That way it never makes it to real court it gets dismissed before that.

[Lou Girardin]

There are cellphones that record too. Hee Hee.

[spudchucka]

Another common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason, is to try and dismiss the argument. Now where have we seen that occur lately?, thats right I remember where;
Whatever Civil or psalm or neo, whoever you are.

The arguement is dismissed by Temese V Police (1992) 9 CRNZ 425 (CA).

The court of appeal considering the relationship between section 23 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act and the power confered in section 66 of the Transport Act 1962, (the predecessor of section 114 Land Transport Act 1998), to stop a vehicle and require the driver to remain stopped.

The court held that a person asked questions under section 66, (now section 114) to establish identity is not detained for the purposes of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. They are not entitled to consult a lawyer without delay while an enforcement officer is making preliminary enquiries under that section.

Therefore ther is no point in reading or responding to the same pointless dribble.

The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental and a moot point in realtion to what was originally being discussed.

[spudchucka]

without cheching if it is Lawful as opposed to "legal" [ given .
For some strange reason your spelling seems to lack clarity, much like that of Mr Psalm42. Naughty troller.:finger:

[Indoo]

Another common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason, is to try and dismiss the argument. Now where have we seen that occur lately?, thats right I remember where;!

Or they can make three accounts and spam the thread with the same ridiculous drivel.

[Psalm42]

The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental and a moot point in realtion to what was originally being discussed.

As for what was orignaly being discussed, take note the cop was not taking information to establish his ID, until after he accused him of speeding (a FUNDIMENTAL jurisdiction issue you still havent answered) and gathering information on what speed he was doing.



Turns out guy who was in the right hand lane was a finger print cop who chases me and pulls me over.
He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me......so he takes my details and tells me a ticket will be in the post for 20 over the limit (as thats what I said).

And as around and around this goes until a simple question is answered. And a question that you clearly must know the answer to as it is "The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental"

Which one is it, only need a one word answer. Civil or Criminal.

Once he got the guys details, the guy could go? He had established ID, he had what 114 said he could ask for, asking what speed helped him ID him better how?

So once you got ID, then you caution people?

[Psalm42]

For some strange reason your spelling seems to lack clarity, much like that of Mr Psalm42. Naughty troller.:finger:



What did you think before you gained this allmighty knowledge? That it would be heard in the public bar of the local boozer?


Wow, you made a spelling mistake spud. Does that make you me?
Or since you where on this forum well before me, does it make me you?

Nah Im just a bit silly by having asked simple question... Sorry to have used you to show how a cop won't answer a question if he thinks hes smart enough to know where its going. But god help anyone that wont answer his questions on the side of the road if they think they know where his questions are going.

And if everyone that makes a spelling mistake is me, do I get their wages?

[marty]

reality is civil/neo/psalm dude, spud is the only one who can be fucked arguing with you. no-one else can. plenty of people on here know just as much as spud, if not more. they just can't be bothered with pointless trolling. there is LOADS of case law that can be trolled up to counter each operson's argument, and quite frankly, most of the time, the defendant is beating a very lonely and narrow path. no-one on here has to justify their actions to you - leave it for the road, where i'm sure your 1 year delay will be looked upon favourably by someone.

[Neo 1]

reality is civil/neo/psalm dude, spud is the only one who can be fucked arguing with you. no-one else can. plenty of people on here know just as much as spud, if not more. they just can't be bothered with pointless trolling. there is LOADS of case law that can be trolled up to counter each operson's argument, and quite frankly, most of the time, the defendant is beating a very lonely and narrow path. no-one on here has to justify their actions to you - leave it for the road, where i'm sure your 1 year delay will be looked upon favourably by someone.


Yes yes Case law; and under what jurisdiction?

Common law

Equity

Admiralty

There is only three.

Knowledge is the perspective between right and wrong

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge

Stupidity is having the knowledge and acting in ignorance.

If we are [spud] going to be picky as to language / spelling /writing

Why do cops have such a problem with writing you name correctly as to the rules of english grammar; or could it be, because of the legal fiction being forced upon the man/woman biker, you have no lawful claim of action other than the presumptions that abound in the courts of [in]justice.

[Indoo]

Did Mikey introduce you to this site?

[marty]

it is none of the 3 that you have quoted, but you know that.

[Ixion]

Equity ceased to be a separate juridicial branch , in the Empire, since the Judicature Act 1873. You're 130 years out of date, or being listening to too many yanks. They still treat equity as a separate branch of law . We don't. Best to make sure you're getting your law from the right bush, eh

[Neo 1]

Equity ceased to be a separate juridicial branch , in the Empire, since the Judicature Act 1873. You're 130 years out of date, or being listening to too many yanks. They still treat equity as a separate branch of law . We don't. Best to make sure you're getting your law from the right bush, eh

Yes 1873 is when they amalgamated common and equity;
and by doing so they removed legal title from you and replaced it with beneficial title:

Motor vehicle cert of registration:[in yellow entitled] IMPORTANT INFORMATION this certificate shows that ownership has been transferred into your name and does NOT CONSTITUTE legal ownership.

I do have a copy of Roscoe's Admiralty Practice, 3rd edition 1903

"A Treatise on the Admiralty jurisdiction and practice of the High Court of Justice and of the vice-admiralty courts and the cinque ports & c.
And contained within is the judicature Act 1873
ejusdem generis would you not agree.

1983 Admiralty Act. No action in admiralty can derrogate from any common law principle . I believe its section 7

Hence sect 20 Crimes Act 1961 Common law justifications.

To be ignorant and free are two things that can never be.

You can also trace benifical ownership as opposed to legal ownership:

Examples are Land act 1948, sec. 70-80 pg. 680-685
in particular 74 (1)...for his own USE and BENEFIT..

which is then reitterated in the Resource Management Act 1991
"An Act to restate the law relating to the USE of land, air, and water.

And in the Public Finance 1989 No.44
" An Act to amend the law governing the USE of public financial resources..."

Do you have LEGAL OWNERSHIP of your bike? No
House? No
Children? No
Land? No
New Zealand New Freeland or my favortite New Slaveland

Law is the USE of words to deadly effect.

Do you have permission[licence] from the legal owner of "your" bike to USE it for your benefit?

Hence theft of motor vehicle in the Crimes Act 1961 is under the heading of "crimes resembling theft"...they call it conversion.

Come on spud, own up the jurisdiction is...ADMIRALTY

I prefer to read their books not play in the "bush" as you refer to it.
Halsbury's anyone?

[civil]

Come on spud, own up the jurisdiction is...ADMIRALTY

What!!! Is that why the courts insist on addressing people with the term Mr (insert surname), or its gender equlivant. As it is a prefix to a designation of ADMIRALTY office or title.
That way what they are saying is "Mr ....., (you are the lowest ranking person in this ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction)", and then if I do not challenge that presumption then by my (in)action, I agree to the jurisdiction. And here I thought the Judge was just being nice to me:doh:

[marty]

you know what they say about talking to yourself...

[spudchucka]

So once you got ID, then you caution people?
No. The act requires the driver to remain stopped as long as necessary for the cop to carry out any of the provisions of the act.

Caution would be appropriate when the cop decides to arrest the person or to detain them for breath alcohol procedure.

Your jurisdiction arguement is pointless.

[Psalm42]

Yes yes Case law; and under what jurisdiction?

Common law

Equity

Admiralty

There is only three.




(you are the lowest ranking person in this ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction)


What crap, there are only 2 jurisdictions, civil or criminal, unless your in the military.

Look at what the guy put up the post said, the cop started questioning him about the alledged speeding before he got the ID details, Spud says he has the right to stop him for under 114 which is for the ID purpose and he has provide the case law to show that.

I can see from what Spud said there a cop can hold you to ID you. After that I am guessing he has to caution you. That makes sence to me, every time I get pulled up they always seem to go for the acusation first, "Any reason you were speeding" can't answer yes or no, both are admisions of guilt. Then they ask for the ID. You hang your self.

Can anyone answer the jurisdiction question, Civil or Criminal, for a speeding offence. And not from anyone who thinks were in the military, incase you missed it Im refering to Civil and Neo1.

[spudchucka]

you know what they say about talking to yourself...
You believe your own bullshit after a while?

Or you're just plain fucked in the head.

[spudchucka]

After that I am guessing he has to caution you.
Which is the problem with your entire input into this thread.

[Psalm42]

you know what they say about talking to yourself...

Yeah, often times it the only time you will have a simple question answered, and it makes people look at you funny:2thumbsup

[Psalm42]

Which is the problem with your entire input into this thread.

Where as not being able/willing to answer a simple question would appear to be the problem with your input into the thread. Not knowing or being deceptive about a Fundimental element of your office.

The amount of times I have heard of guys being turned away from the cop shop because there ex didnt drop the kids off or similar and the cops answer has been " Thats a civil matter, you will have to take it up with the court"
So some cops do know the difference between civil and criminal jurisdictions and do not seem to be worried about devulging which one is appropriate for a given situation.

[Ixion]

..
Can anyone answer the jurisdiction question, Civil or Criminal, for a speeding offence. And not from anyone who thinks were in the military, incase you missed it Im refering to Civil and Neo1.

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.

[Neo 1]

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.

Are you saying that New Zealand is not independant?
Perhaps you should read Hlasburys laws of england in relation to "Rights i connection with Highways"

"A right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year to pass and repass without LET or HINDERANCE ex parte Lewis 1888 21 Q.B.D

What is the PROBABLE cause; haven't paid your tax, enough tax.




QUOTE=spudchucka]No. The act requires the driver to remain stopped as long as necessary for the cop to carry out any of the provisions of the act.

Caution would be appropriate when the cop decides to arrest the person or to detain them for breath alcohol procedure.

Your jurisdiction arguement is pointless.[/QUOTE]

Let me ge this straight ; disclosure of the nature and cause is irrelevant?

disclosure of the jurisdiction the plaintiff is claiming is irrelevant?

Which would obviously lead on to the irrelevancy of natural justice, due process,
right to be heard, common law disclosure, disclosure of all evidence for the case, not to be rushed to judgement ; if this is the case then don't it make brown shirts blue and the black robes quite fitting for the event.

I would have to agree with you spud; if the jurisdcition question is pointless, why even bother penalising a sinner of the almighty "statute".
Wouldn't summary execution be more efficient; or is it the revenue that is more important.
Nuremburg dealt with that excuse; I was obeying orders.

To be ignorant and free are two things that can never be

[Ixion]

Lewis(1888) was about people blocking Trafalger Square. It relates to not allowing people to block off the highway. Nothing to dfo with the right of a Constable to stop you.

No idea what you mean by "New Zealand is not independant" Doubt you have either. We are her Majesty's subjects (loyal ones I trust). Take a look at the back of a coin if you are unsure.



Let me ge this straight ; disclosure of the nature and cause is irrelevant?

disclosure of the jurisdiction the plaintiff is claiming is irrelevant?


Hurrah. You got it. The cop can stop you. Cos he wants to. There is no "jurisdiction" (I've quoted the word because I don't think you understand what it actually emans) .Just like a red traffic light. Light says stop. you stop. Cop says stop. You stop

Simple.



Which would obviously lead on to the irrelevancy of natural justice, due process,
right to be heard, common law disclosure, disclosure of all evidence for the case, not to be rushed to judgement


Good luck peddling that in court.

[spudchucka]

Where as not being able/willing to answer a simple question would appear to be the problem with your input into the thread. Not knowing or being deceptive about a Fundimental element of your office.

The amount of times I have heard of guys being turned away from the cop shop because there ex didnt drop the kids off or similar and the cops answer has been " Thats a civil matter, you will have to take it up with the court"
So some cops do know the difference between civil and criminal jurisdictions and do not seem to be worried about devulging which one is appropriate for a given situation.
You're starting to sound really dense.

Custody disputes can be complicated. People turn up at the station expecting the cops to go around to their ex's house and get the kids back, even if they have a court order granting them custody the cops can't do anything unless there is a court warrant to enforce custody.

This is usually why they get turned away, (because they do not have a warrant). It has nothing to do with it being civil or criminal. If a warrant to enforce custody has been granted the police will enforce it. If a warrant is granted the children will be removed however that doesn't mean the person they are being removed from will face charges.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I said that a defended traffic ticket will be heard in the district court, (usually JP traffic court) clearly under the criminal jurisdiction. It is retarded to suggest in any way that it is or could be a civil matter. If you have a point hurry up and make it because you are becoming painfully repetative.

[spudchucka]

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.
Just to clarify, a TON, (Traffic Offence Notice) is issued for serious traffic offences, ones where the alleged offender will be summonsed to court. An ION, (Infringement Offence Notice) is the much loved traffic ticket for speeding etc, minor stuff where an instant fine is applicable.

[scumdog]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.

[Lou Girardin]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.
:finger: i.m.h.o.

[Psalm42]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.

Thanks for the advise, will do. I havent been on a forum like this before, so just learning, no Idea what half the shorted stuff means, ie a t m, means where you get your cash from to me. TON meant 160 to me until Spud explained. You might like my next post after this one, it might come in handy next time you get stopped for a I.O.N.
Regards
And thanks again.

[M1CRO]

Thanks for the advise, will do. I havent been on a forum like this before, so just learning, no Idea what half the shorted stuff means, ie a t m, means where you get your cash from to me. TON meant 160 to me until Spud explained. You might like my next post after this one, it might come in handy next time you get stopped for a I.O.N.
Regards
And thanks again.

atm = at the moment
imho = in my humble opinion

[marty]

it's typical of people who think they have something important to say, but they embelish it with extraneous rubbish, to draw the attention away from the real fact - that fact usually is - that they really have no idea or at the most only have a laymans understanding what they are talking about. polititians, lawyers, and the winners of survivor are masters at it. i'm surpised the subject of this thread isn't 'Once upon a time'

[The Stranger]

It's at times like this I am reminded of the definition of stress.

The confusion created when your mind overrides the body's basic desire to choke shit out of some jerk who desperatley deserves it.

[Lou Girardin]

it's typical of people who think they have something important to say, but they embelish it with extraneous rubbish, to draw the attention away from the real fact - that fact usually is - that they really have no idea or at the most only have a laymans understanding what they are talking about. polititians, lawyers, and the winners of survivor are masters at it. i'm surpised the subject of this thread isn't 'Once upon a time'

Policemen, current or ex, are not the sole repository of knowledge of law. That's why defence lawyers win cases and why cops do things like book a rider for having a tinted visor.

[civil]

cops can't do anything unless there is a court warrant to enforce custody.

Spud, have a read of s20a Guardianship Act 1968. Not too sure of the equlivant clause in the latest Care of Children Act, as I have not needed to use it to get Cops to DO THEIR JOB!!!! recently.

And it is not just Defence Lawyers that win cases, but those who care to understand and challenge the presumptions around them like, there is nothing I can do about it as the cops have jurisdiction!, or it cant be under a mitilary jurisdiction!!

[marty]

Policemen, current or ex, are not the sole repository of knowledge of law. That's why defence lawyers win cases and why cops do things like book a rider for having a tinted visor.never said they were. i've seen my share of defence lawyers talk more than share of shit, not to mention some of the laughable requests, both in court, and to the police.

hey i've been ambushed by lawyers that know what they're talking about, but more often it's the bush lawyers trying to defend themselves that provide the best laughs - those 'bush' lawyers may know how the law READS, but they have no idea how it WORKS.

[Neo 1]

never said they were. i've seen my share of defence lawyers talk more than share of shit, not to mention some of the laughable requests, both in court, and to the police.

hey i've been ambushed by lawyers that know what they're talking about, but more often it's the bush lawyers trying to defend themselves that provide the best laughs - those 'bush' lawyers may know how the law READS, but they have no idea how it WORKS.

Ohh its 8:30
How do you know its 8:30
Because its writen down on this piece of paper.

The police exist because of a piece of paper; quite an old piece. I do hope that they don't lose it.

Might is right; or is it right is might.

Is sec. 114 written on a piece of paper?

From the book "Introduction to Advocacy" put out by the New Zealand Law Society

This is studied by fourth-year law students preparing to work as defence lawyers.

Page 17, Chapter 2 "Conduct of an advocate"
opening quote:

"It is not that a barrister's duty to the Court creates such a conflict with his duty to his client that the dividing line is unclear. The duty to the Court is paramount even if the client gives instructions to the contrary.

Giannerelli v Wraith (1998) 165 CLR 543 per Mason CJ at 556.

The quotation above resolves any doubts you might have had about your duty to the Court on the one hand, and your duty to your client on the other."

Comment: And people pay these guys $350 or more per hour for this!

Page 33, subsection: "Language"

"You are getting ready to participate in a system of justice bound by 200 years of tradition and precedent. Many of the rituals, the language and the formality may seem old-fashioned but lack of knowledge or application of them will, at best, make your life difficult and, at worst, be detrimental to the outcome of your client's case."

Comment: How many lawyers read this and then open up Bouvier's 1856 so they can comprehend the true meanings of the words they use from 200 years ago?

To be ignorant and free are two things that can never be

[gav]

I'd like to know why, when you're parked on the side of the road and Mr Plod is writing out an ION, they say "got your speed at 120km, do you want to see it?" Well I'm sure the screen says "120" but what proof have I got that its MY speed, and not the last victim he got? And why if I'm riding a motorcycle that isnt actually licenced to me, and is registered to someone else, dont they do checks anymore? And dont they check for rego and WOF? :blink:
So after all this, do I pay the ticket or write asking what jurisdiction this ticket falls under, or do nothing as its only alleged that I've done this speed? :blip:

[scumdog]

:finger: i.m.h.o.

Is that you wishing to defend the title????:lol: :whistle:

[Quasievil]

Im about to defend a speeding ticket issued to me last weekend where i was speed checked at 145, reduced to 140 "to be fair" trouble was I was doing 120 and held that arguement with the officer. The problem I have with my ticket is the woman officer admitted to me that she she speed checked the bike behind me at 125kph I asked her, how can you speed check me at 145kph whilst following a bike at 125kph, at that point she ripped out the ticket gave it to me and walked away.
Ive spoken to a lawyer and apparently its not about defending its about requesting full disclosure this is where they can be arsed at let you off, Im hoping it works cause I now have 90 points:thud:

[Quasievil]

Bugger Brett.. where was that?

Papakura, just going past the autobarn last Sunday

[spudchucka]

Spud, have a read of s20a Guardianship Act 1968. Not too sure of the equlivant clause in the latest Care of Children Act, as I have not needed to use it to get Cops to DO THEIR JOB!!!! recently.
The situation regarding the enforcement of custody is as I described. No warrant = no enforcement.

[spudchucka]

I'd like to know why, when you're parked on the side of the road and Mr Plod is writing out an ION, they say "got your speed at 120km, do you want to see it?"
Its just considered to be best practice to offer to show the readout to the driver.

[Bonez]

Its just considered to be best practice to offer to show the readout to the driver.And if that read out is actually from another vehical and not the person being ticketed. Should imagine it does happen at times. Just being the devils advacate here :blip:

[marty]

i personally don't know of it ever happening. is it worth risking a $50k salary for a measly ION? i don't think so.

[scumdog]

And if that read out is actually from another vehical and not the person being ticketed. Should imagine it does happen at times. Just being the devils advacate here :blip:

NEVER! well not with this guy.
I mean how do you know the guy you just pulled over is not Inspector Dick on his holidays who knows a shitload more about radar/lazer than you and knows you're telling porkies?
Goodbye job if you tried the above idea and tried b.s. the Inspector dude....

And that's before you even get into personal ethics and morals, in my case no way will I even harbour the thought of unethical stuff.

Besides, there are always enough speeding brain-dead on the road to run into my radar beam without resorting to shennanigans like Bonez suggested.

[spudchucka]

And if that read out is actually from another vehical and not the person being ticketed. Should imagine it does happen at times. Just being the devils advacate here :blip:
Why bother? There are plenty of people speeding so why put your job at risk by doing dodgy shit like that?

[Lou Girardin]

Why bother? There are plenty of people speeding so why put your job at risk by doing dodgy shit like that?

So perhaps a law widely disregarded is a bad law.

[marty]

like smoking cannabis?
like domestic assault? or any assault for that matter..
like shoplifting?
like drink driving?

[spudchucka]

So perhaps a law widely disregarded is a bad law.
Who said anything about disregarding it?

The post was about cops alegedly booking people based on false readouts from a vehicle that had been stopped earlier.

There will always be speed limits, there will always be people that think they are too high or too low and there will always be people that bitch about them on the internet.

[Lou Girardin]

Spud, you said that there's plenty of people speeding. Hence my post.

Apart from the dope smoking Marty, would there be more than 300,000 prosecutions of the other three offences each year?
Combined even.

[marty]

i was just talking about widely disregarded laws, like you were. not about numbers.

[spudchucka]

Spud, you said that there's plenty of people speeding. Hence my post.
As Marty stated, other laws are widely ignored too, even theft, burglary, assault and robbery are widely ignored by certain sectors of the community. There were 223,713 recorded dishonesty offences in the year ending 30 June 2005. Not quite the 300,000 Lou but it seems to be pretty widely ignored too.

There were only 14,654 cannabis related offences recorded in the same year. With a 91% resolution rate it would be safe to assume that most of those offences were prosecutions or warnings for possession of small quantities.

I bet if you talked to burglars they would think there was nothing really wrong with what they are doing either, after all thats why people have insurance, isn't it?

[marty]

thanks spud - i knew the 41/42/43 numbers were pretty high. they're probably bad laws though

[Lou Girardin]

i was just talking about widely disregarded laws, like you were. not about numbers.

The law I referred to is more widely disregarded than yours. So there:nya: :nya: :nya:

[Lou Girardin]

As Marty stated, other laws are widely ignored too, even theft, burglary, assault and robbery are widely ignored by certain sectors of the community. There were 223,713 recorded dishonesty offences in the year ending 30 June 2005. Not quite the 300,000 Lou but it seems to be pretty widely ignored too.

There were only 14,654 cannabis related offences recorded in the same year. With a 91% resolution rate it would be safe to assume that most of those offences were prosecutions or warnings for possession of small quantities.

I bet if you talked to burglars they would think there was nothing really wrong with what they are doing either, after all thats why people have insurance, isn't it?

Sorry Spud. No cigar.

[spudchucka]

thanks spud - i knew the 41/42/43 numbers were pretty high. they're probably bad laws though
Yeah, must be seeing as they are so widely ignored!

[marty]

Lou wins the award for most obstinate tosser today, and it's obly 0843am!

[Lou Girardin]

Lou wins the award for most obstinate tosser today, and it's obly 0843am!

I accept your concession.
We'll meet again at the next argument.

[Swoop]

So perhaps a law widely disregarded is a bad law.

There is a quote (trying to track down originator) that went something like "Laws are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".
It appears this is so in our society today. We have so many rules that either supersede other rules, haven't been revoked, are drafted as replacements, etc, etc. Leaky buildings are a classic case - "lets make lots of new rules" simply because of bad design+bad building practices +++ pathetic inspection by councils.
Less rules please, but make them common sense ones!

[Lou Girardin]

There is a quote (trying to track down originator) that went something like "Laws are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".
It appears this is so in our society today. We have so many rules that either supersede other rules, haven't been revoked, are drafted as replacements, etc, etc. Leaky buildings are a classic case - "lets make lots of new rules" simply because of bad design+bad building practices +++ pathetic inspection by councils.
Less rules please, but make them common sense ones!

Can't agree more. But we are cursed with populist pollies and clueless Police "Managers" who's response to every issue is "we need a new law". The driving while distracted proposal is the latest nonsense. Then there's the 'boy racer' laws being used indiscriminately.
But, if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Until they make what you're doing wrong, that is.

[Divot]

Can't agree more. But we are cursed with populist pollies and clueless Police "Managers" who's response to every issue is "we need a new law". The driving while distracted proposal is the latest nonsense. Then there's the 'boy racer' laws being used indiscriminately.
But, if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Until they make what you're doing wrong, that is.

Dont forget the LTSA who make most of the laws that the police are require to enforce.

[inlinefour]

I will, I always see it as inevitable getting caught.
You just got to hope you don't get too many tickets at once.

Thats allways a good way of looking at it.:lol:

[Psalm42]

You're starting to sound really dense.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I said that a defended traffic ticket will be heard in the district court, (usually JP traffic court) clearly under the criminal jurisdiction. It is retarded to suggest in any way that it is or could be a civil matter. If you have a point hurry up and make it because you are becoming painfully repetative.

Wellington CC v McCready
The Bill of Rights was concerned with the criminal process, and the infringement process was civil in character rather than criminal.

Keep in mind a judge said that.

And then this case,

"The appellant had not disputed the offence infringement notice, relying on the serving officer's (incorrect) assurance that payment of the infringement fee would not result in the addition of further demerit points. It was argued that there had been a breach of s 24(a)(BORA), in that the plaintiff had not been correctly informed of the nature and cause of the charge.

Baragwanath J(judge) was not convinced that there had been a prima facie breach of s 24(a) (p 3):

“Information ‘of the nature and cause of the charge’ is not necessarily synonymous with information as to the consequences of conviction upon it, although it may be arguable that a wider purposive approach to the section is appropriate.”

I find it note worthy Honorable Judge Baragwanath, did not dismiss the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, just not being informed of the consiquences.

So if asked the nature and cause of the reason one is being stopped, it would be:
Civil in nature, and the cause would be speeding and the power to make the stop under section 114 of Lta 1998?

[marty]

that is not how i interpret it. the infringment PROCESS (that is, the collection of any penalty) was civil, not the cause or reason for being stopped. that was for commiting an offence, which is a criminal matter, as both the requirement to obey the rules, and the power to stop vehicles or persons breaking those rules, are both contained within the LT Act

[Stevo]

You were obviously not doing anywhere near 100. Maths says that if he had to do 100 to catch you he wouldn't have caught you if you were doing 100.

[marty]

so simon - what has happened - have you been posted the ticket yet?

[spudchucka]

Psalm42, you are so far from reality on this issue that the discussion isn't worth continuing.

[SimJen]

so simon - what has happened - have you been posted the ticket yet?

Yeah Marty, got it in the post :(
Have written a letter explaining it all with the help of a lawyer friend. At the least it will keep them amused in Wellington :)