Are Speeding Fines, Parking Fines, Tolls and Tram Fines Voluntary?
I have sent variations of this letter for a few fines and tolls. So far the response has been similar: there is none. Once they receive this letter, they send no more correspondence, even when originally they stated that if the fine isn’t paid within 30 days, they will issue further fines. I can’t tell you exactly the reason behind it, only my suspicions: that the fines are voluntary – invoices issued by a corporation to generate revenue, with the expectation that you will comply without question. Normally, when you pay the fine, you have agreed to the contract through your compliance. If you don’t pay, then you have no accepted the contract, and you have no obligation. They never reply because any response they could be an admission that what they are doing is fraudulent or unethical. They don’t issue any further fines because you have called their bluff. They have charged you without trial, which is a perversion of justice – they have presumed you were guilty.
You are free to use this letter as a template for your own fines. A priviso: as I can’t possibly understand your exact situation, none of what I am typing qualifies as legal advice.
The letter follows:
Civic Compliance Victoria
GPO Box 1916
Melbourne Vic 3001The date.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to discuss your request for a contract titled: “Infringement Notice”, obligation number xxxxxxxxxx.
You cite the Infringements Act 2006 and the Road Safety Road Rules 2009. Before I agree to this contract or pay your organisation any monies, I will require the following proofs relating to these acts and rules.
A. Proof that those acts and rules were applicable to me at the time of the alleged infringement.
B. Proof that those acts and rules obligate me to pay the requested amount; and
C. Proof that you have the authority to enforce these acts and rules; or
D. Proof of a contract signed or agreed to by me that clearly states I am bound to pay these amounts; and
E. Proof that this contract was applicable to me at the time of the alleged infringement; and in addition
F. These documents signed by a man or woman of appropriate authority, with full liability and under penalty of perjury, and witnessed by a notary public or Justice of the Peace.
Please provide either all of proofs A, B, C and F, or all of the proofs D, E and F.
If you issue me any more requests for payment without first producing these proofs, I will impose the following fee schedule:
$170 (one hundred and seventy dollars) per hour, or any part of an hour, for the legal research necessary to determine if your claims are valid.
Please respond to this notice promptly, within fourteen days of receipt. If you do not respond within fourteen days, it is assumed that you no longer wish to negotiate this contract, and I will consider it void.
Your pal,
Kurt David Robinson
Leave any comments below, critical and supportive alike.
Cover photo by brizzle born and bred, under Creative Commons.
Related Posts:
Comments (9)
Bitcoin address: 18r6U3maEdA9LZo7hX9LGBBkF5zTrKdbtU
So, after more than 14 days, have you had a reply?
[Reply]
Kurt Robinson Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
No reply, no follow-up. No further threats. No correspondence, nothing.
[Reply]
So this actually works? My buddy was talking to me about something similar. Where you can sign under distress, a speeding ticket. Would you say your method would apply to the USA as well?
[Reply]
it worked for a couple of things. trying it for a tram fine, it didn’t work, i suppose because those guys receive so many excuses i suppose they have a standard response. so I’m still working on that one.
I’ve heard about police getting you to sign, and you sign and put after it, “under protest and duress”, but i can’t testify to its efficacy.
for the USA, one resource you can look at is Winston Shrout. one idea of his is just putting the words “accepted for value” on the notice. have a look and experiment. the worst that’ll happen is they’ll say wtf just pay the fine (that’s when you try again.
have fun and please don’t use this as an excuse to drive like a maniac
[Reply]
In pure law this is known as a “Notice Quo Warranto” which is Latin for , show me your authority. This is quite valid and what we all should be asking for when confronted with any fine or penalty which is derived from an officer for a government department. the Bill of Rights section 12 clearly states, ” That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures to all persons before conviction is illegal and void.” and this can be found in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 Victoria. Keep up the good work.
[Reply]
Kurt Robinson Reply:
May 13th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
It turned out they kept sending fines three or four months later, just pretending as if I’d never sent them a letter.
Thanks for your comment Darryl, I just found the section. This is fucking brilliant, and I can rub this in their faces whenever they say “This fine is found to comply with all statutory obligations.” Cheers!
[Reply]
Kurt Robinson Reply:
May 13th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
By the way, in the case of the tram fines, where they did respond to me, they never produced any proof of their authority to do so.
[Reply]
Have you seen this? http://www.exfacie.com/?q=ccv_infringement_notice_is_a_fine_is_illegal_and_void
I’m off to court tomorrow to dispute unregistered tolls on eastlink, the short version is that I rang to put a car I bought on my account which obviously didn’t happen. About 5months later I had to call ccv about something and they tell me I’ve got 14 infringement/enforcement warrants.
I never received the notices and have documentation to show in the same time period I was paying regular amounts into my breeze account and I paid a city link toll I received in the mail in the same time. The matters at court relate to eastlink btw.
I went to eastlink hq to pay the value of the tolls which would have been $16-17 had the car been on the account instead of nearly $1800 because of thr hundredd of dollars in extra fines for not paying, to hopefully get them off my back, paid $79.16 and I thought that was just extra fees. Turns out if you have more than one unregistered trip in a day they send the most expensive to ccv and keep the other ones, so I paid off more fines that I had no idea about.
Hoping that me demonstrating that I was paying money into the account and that I paid tolls I had no idea about gets me a favorable outcome, hopefully without having to go into he magistrate. If not I’ll try what the website above says, that fines issued by ccv are illegal and void.
[Reply]
Kurt Robinson Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
hey aaron, yes, that seems to be along similar lines to the link darryl posted above, talking about the bill of rights 1688, with the idea about grants and promises of fines before a trial being illegal. i’m not really sure what that means. it seems to be saying that if the king charges lord grey with treason and gives grey’s land to lord harris before a trial, it’s illegal. i don’t think it makes fines before trial illegal.
anyway, a couple of things you might look at… go on youtube and look up anything by dean clifford, especially the most recent ones in aylmer quebec. read through the maxims of law section of bouvier’s law dictionary, you can find it online.
the other thing you can try: send them a letter or notarised affidavit stating that you don’t have any obligations to their organisation and no statutes have any force or effect over you. tell them if they don’t respond within 30 days you’ll take it as their agreement. send another letter after 30 days saying if they still want to respond go ahead. then send a third letter as an affidavit stating that you have not received any response and therefore they are in agreement that you have no obligations. this way, when you get into court you can demonstrate that you sought to resolve the matter and they preferred not to respond. the principle of law is called “estoppel” – if someone doesn’t make a claim within a reasonable period of time, then they are prevented or “estopped” from making such a claim later.
btw are you in sydney or melbourne?
[Reply]