Pulled over

**Lou Girardin** · 11th November 2005, 14:54

Originally Posted by 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'

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** · 11th November 2005, 19:56

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** · 11th November 2005, 20:37

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

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** · 11th November 2005, 22:35

Originally Posted by marty

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** · 11th November 2005, 23:22

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?

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?

**scumdog** · 12th November 2005, 04:30

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

i.m.h.o.

Is that you wishing to defend the title????

**Quasievil** · 12th November 2005, 06:40

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

**Quasievil** · 12th November 2005, 09:19

Originally Posted by SpeedMedic

Bugger Brett.. where was that?

Papakura, just going past the autobarn last Sunday

**spudchucka** · 12th November 2005, 13:05

Originally Posted by civil

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** · 12th November 2005, 13:08

Originally Posted by 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?"

Its just considered to be best practice to offer to show the readout to the driver.

**Bonez** · 12th November 2005, 14:04

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

**marty** · 12th November 2005, 20:44

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** · 13th November 2005, 02:40

Originally Posted by Bonez

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

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** · 13th November 2005, 13:26

Originally Posted by Bonez

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

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