On the news tonight, the latest 'war against speed', is just getting more silly every day, due to fact that the road toll is up on last years road toll, the Victorians are going to have Helicopters flying above the freeways checking the speeds of the cars and radioing down to the patrol cars to apprehend the offending motorist, is this the biggest waste of money you have ever heard of?, how much would it cost to run the Helicopter, $10,000 per hour?, how many motorists are they going to have to book to pay for this stupid public relations stunt?, by now there must be enough speed cameras to catch all the Larry lead foots, on my drive to work of 35klms, according to my GPS, there are 14 speed cameras, if you start to drift 2 klms over the speed limit, by watching the road, instead of your speedo, one of the million cameras will get you, leave the helicopters to do real community work, by finding lost kids, or taking heart attack victims to hospital, Colin.
Exactly, what a waste of time and money
I couldn't believe they would admit to such a thing let alone be proud. ::)
It would seem that to blame speed alone for the road toll is to claim all pregnancies are due to a lack of condom use. It isn't that simple but it is the simplest way to make revenue. A few issues that come to mind that produce road accidents but are not speed related.
Driver error
Poor driver skills
Poor judgment
Poor vision
Lack of anticipation
Lack of safety car maintenance
Poor road maintenance
Bad road planning
Under the influence
Adverse weather conditions
Lack of speed (piss poor performance during over taking)
Distractions
I am sure you can add a few to this list but for some genuine stroke of genius for our administrators, speed is the only one that we need to manage disproportionately.
I would like to see the statistics for road deaths that were purely attributed to speed compared with all road deaths to see what that relationship is.
You know, I always wondered when exactly was it that uniform speed regulations were ever introduced into Australian traffic laws. I mean on what basis were they set? Were the stopping and braking distances based on cheese cutter tyres made from some black stuff not related to tyres of today? Were the brake efficiencies the same as they are today? Were the suspension systems capable of the handling of modern cars? The answers is of course not !!
Logic would dictate that road behavior could be moderated consistent with improvements in vehicle performance (in the aggregate) and hence speed restrictions revised. But oh shit no, that would be way to practical and a revenue looser.
BTW if it hasn't happened already, get ready for trained koalas in gum trees with radar guns to monitor speed in the quest to reduce carbon emissions.
Someone once said that the Speed Control movement was like a bowel movement - they both give you the shits ! ;D
Their next strategy:
If anyone wants to discuss confusing messages from Vic Pol, can they explain the illuminated signs I have seen recently which state "Police Enforcing Speed" would have to rate among the most confusing message yet.
I wonder if a Magistrate would accept that sign as a defence after I was caught exceeding the posted speed limit by a small margin by one of the $10,000 an hour helicopters?
Perhaps someone from Vic Pol (or anyone else) might also consider explaining their oft used mantra SPEED KILLS and exactly what speed kills.
I accept that inappropriate speed can be a contributing factor to the road toll but that could involve a vehicle being driven at the legal speed of 40 kph in a school zone.
Barry
Exactly Barry. A lot of the single vehicle accidents are caused by vehicles leaving the road doing ridiculous speeds and hitting trees. I'm also curious as to how booking someone doing 105 kmh on a divided freeway like the Princes will stop these types of accidents. Also if you follow the wipe off 5 argument logically we should ban all cars driving above walking pace.
I know this is probably a bit boring, but the Vic Govt and the Monash Uni Accident Research Centre (propounders of the "speed kills" mantra) already know the real relevance of speed.
For some idle reading go to www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb127.html and you will find a research paper titled "The Speed Review" done in 1993 by the same Monash Uni ARC.
Conclusion? Excessive speed is probably involved in 12 - 16% of all crashes (note the use of the adjective).
No doubt the continuing need for research funding requires a more tell them what they want to hear approach!
Going by your figures Chris, it would probably seem that 84-88% of fatal crashes are not the result of excessive speed.
I am not encouraging anyone to get stupid with speed. What I am saying is to get to know your car well. Get yourself skilled up at a good range a speeds especially the area of car control. Ensure your car is well serviced and finally for goodness sake pick an appropriate place for some exhilarating Alfa motoring. If you feel the need to go further, go to the track.
Only problem is, none of the control poobahs could see any logic in that at all.
When they started to consider speeding fines as part of the predicted state incomes, it then became a vested interest to over enforce it.
The fact that the road tolls stay about the same just shows that it's nothing more than a grab for cash.
The revenue raisers don't care if people die on the roads, it's leverage for them to add even more enforcement of speed limits. If they genuinely gave a sh!t, for starters, everyone who holds a license would have to do advanced and defensive driver training, the same training that emergency services like the Police, Fireies and Ambo's have to do.
I did laugh when Mark Skaife was on some News/Current Affair program ages ago, complaining about the over policing of speed limits in Australia and suggesting that good quality highway speeds should actually be increased.
The show then had some grief stricken father who had lost his daughter in a 'speed related' car accident some time in the past (years) saying how MS was wrong, that speed did kill and was very dangerous and MUST be policed with great vigor............. ::)
And on the way to Ballarat today i saw plenty of speed cameras making lots of money from the variable speed limits, [a real money spinner], what am i supposed to be doing 40-60-80-80-100?, i can't remember, snap!, too fast, then only one of the 'check speed here' indicators were working, so how do you know if your speedo is out?, bad luck, then there was a candy car sitting at the side of the road with a speed gun, as opposed to policing poor driving standards, but an absolute pearler was a billboard put up by i think it was 'citizens for safe driving', [wouldn't you love to be on that commitee], with a cartoon picture of a car that has hit a pole, with the cars tongue hanging out the grill and the driver all crossed eyed with his head in an airbag, with the caption at the end, wait for it...... 'SPEED KILLS', but there were no Helicopters, Colin
I remember doing a driver training session a couple of years ago with some trainers from the John Bowe Driving team. I have been organising these sessions for my work for many years now.
The comment made by the trainers was that the number one problem with drivers on the road today, was the driver's attitude. That while many factors can be blamed including road design, road/weather conditions, car maintenance, a drivers health, level of training/experience on the road, intoxicants (alcohol/drugs) and yes also speed, that it is people who really are to blame for the majority of collisions. They also distinguished the difference between car crashes/collisions and accidents, noting that most incidents on the road were not accidents in fact.
The point is cars these days are largely/relatively safe, the roads are in general pretty good, albeit there are plenty of shockers, but it is a person's attitude (that is the way you and other drivers, drive on the road). Road manners, consideration for others, leaving sufficient space between yourself and the next driver, driving to the conditions, having the correct set up (steering wheel to seat height distance, mirrors, distractions including phones), tyre pressure, good mechanical condition of your car, driver fatigue, one's emotional state etc that for the most part will dictate whether or not you are likely to have a crash/collision.
The key message they imparted is that there is much you can do as a driver to ensure you are in the best condition/state of mind/alertness and your car is ok, etc to minimise such risks, but there is absolutely nothing you can do beyond giving yourself space on the road from other cars to try to prevent the risk.
Speeding is an easy target to work on, as it carries emotive messages, just like drink/drug drivers do, but it is inherently wrong to state that it is the main cause. Sure having plenty of cameras out there, cops on the road etc have had an impact on drivers in general travelling a lot slower than they used to but this also is a problem. But the huge range of speed limits them very selves as Col notes is a distraction in itself. They can be so confusing to drivers that the inevitable happens and you end up getting fined, for actually not doing really anything wrong. I would suspect that most drivers do not go out of their way to speed, but rather simply get caught for going just slightly over a limit, which down or up the road was different to where they are caught.
We have in general modern cars which are better equipped than ever to travel at a reasonable speeds on the highway and yet we restrict them to say, 80 or a 100/110km. Our major highways are actually pretty good these days in terms of surface, camber, sufficient lanes and traffic barriers or better still separation distances, and yet our Pollies seem to increasingly act to further reduce the limits on such roads, let alone other ones. Sure in suburban areas, school zones, shopping areas traffic speeds do need to be slower because of pedestrians etc, but on the open highway, I question their logic/thinking on this.
Over in Europe, as we all know in Germany on the Autobahns there is no upper limit, and in fact you can be fined for going too slow. In Italy and France to the best of my memory the limit is 130Km on their highways, mind you plenty drive a lot faster than that. I have driven many times in Europe and never once was concerned about the upper speeds I was travelling at, as were other drivers.
Of course the opposite is true in Scandanavia where speeding is heavily targeted and the fines/disqualification etc is very heavy handed. They also have a Zero limit for alcohol, but then again grog is expensive in such countries anyway.
Unfortunately for us our Pollies and the Police use Speed as a panacea, a bandaid to appease the general public who don't actually stop to think about such matters and do a little basic research into the causes for crashes. Ditto our Pollies have become addicted to the revenue, much like how they love the $$$ from gambling, even while saying how terrible it is to society blah blah blah.
The best thing I think we can do in the car enthusiast arena is try to get the message out there that proper driver training for young people is paramount, everything else from there can follow.
I have to admit that following the training course I did, it has changed my views on driving and how I drive on the road. I am certainly a lot more sensible (have a better attitude) than when I was young and thought myself to be invincible.
Oh and BTW I don't think it costs $10K/hr for choppers, although I might be wrong. I only note this as my brother used to fly his clients out from SW Tassie after rafting the Franklin and I am pretty sure he told me that back then (say 5 + years ago) that the cost per hour was around $700.
The $10,000 per hour is a gestimate on my behalf, $700 per hour is not too bad, but still over the top for catching motorists 3 klms over the limit, we get the polititions we deserve, when we let them get away with this con, in Victoria, just before a holiday they have the chief commisioner of police delivering a statement that they are getting tough on speeding motorists, and for years he would give the command and all the candy cars would be driven out of the Dawson st. Brunswick traffic division, that would have Larry leadfoot shaking in his boots, we have allowed the goverments to get addicted to the revenue[drug], try and take it off them, Colin.
I am not too sure it was the chief of police Colin; I believe it was the police Superintendent's plan and he stated that the Chief Commissioner had not come aboard his plan at this stage. I was gob smacked because I was thinking this campaign has no real authority. As far as I can see, the Vic Police are a private company. Why else would they be in the phone book under Business and not Government. Also I find no reference to the Police in the Victorian Constitution. Although, it was a while ago I last looked. We have to remember, the Victorian Constitution can be changed whenever the Government require as no referendum is needed in this State. That is how John Brumby made himself as Premier the number One person in the State and removed the power of the State Governor to do representative duties only. Now our new Premier Ted Brumby is the top person. (Scary stuff hey?)
But, the problem is too many people do not want to learn their rights and just pay their fines. Speed cameras are illegal! The illegal speed cameras have to be recalibrated after each use and that can only be done by the CSIRO. An interesting case in the Supreme Court in the USA recently took place. The Judge ruled that because the USA is founded on Common Law the States nor Federal governments have no authority to place any costs on their roads. "Roads are as old as antiquity and as the public pay for the roads the people own the roads. No government has the right to charge for fines, registration or even licences. Roads have always been a means of journey and freedom." Now, while I personally believe we need licences as we do not want untrained idiots on the roads we should have a licence for life, not have to pay every 3 or 10 years. Once off egistration should just be remain until you release ownership of the vehicle, after all, until that time your car is still registered in your name whether you pay your registration or not. Last year there was a Supreme Court case here in Melbourne, you might remember it. A bloke finished his meal in a restaurant in the city and left, the police walked past at that moment and the restaurant owner came running out and told the police that "He didn't pay?" The police gave chase, one on foot and one in the cop car. They finally caught him in Flinders Street and arrested him. When in Court the defendant claimed he was in his right because he was not under arrest. The Magistrate agreed and let him leave. The Police took him to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judge lady said. "I think you Police have forgotten that Common Law resides in this country and you cannot stop anyone unless they are under arrest." And she let him leave. Now this is big news, because in actual fact, we do not have to stop for a police car if we are certain we have no arrest warrant. Vic Roads laws state we do, but common law always prevails.
As for me, maybe I do have warrants for speed camera fines and not paying EastLink, but I do not consider them legal. Victorian legislation states that the police cannot work for private companies. Speed camera operators and EastLink are private companies, yet the fines are issued through Vic Police. A cop woman told me last week that it is not the case and the are working for the Perrin Court. I cannot see how this court can be legal because you, the defendant are not given an option of defending yourself, you just receive a higher cost fine in the mail.
Premier Steve Bracks signed an agreement with John Howard; the deal stated that the Scoresby freeway would never be a Tollway. The Howard Government was to pay $407 million and the Vic Gov was to pay the same amount. Steve Bracks was the first and only Premier to rip up a contract; a legally binding contract that still stands! His excuse? The Vic Government did not have $407 million dollars! Of course a huge lie because, he found close to two billion dollars to pay for the MYKI ticketing system. Oh yeah, we the people had to pay two thousand million dollars so a private company who does not pay one cent for anything can arm its Metro ticket inspector army with weapons to harm us and cause untold injury if we do not have a valid ticket. Staying on this subject for a minute. We used to have 3 zones, the removed zone 3 and now we have zones 1 and 2. When I would jump on a train in Belgrave (zone 2 now) and travel to Frankston (again zone 2 now) I would buy a zone 2 ticket, and why not? I am going from zone 2 to zone 2; I do not want to go via zone 1 (city), but the antiquated train system can only have me going that way. Now because MYKI times the trip I have to pay for going into zone 1. I do not depart the station in zone 1 when transferring to another line, but I have to pay.
It is a pity they removed the ad "If you do not buy a ticket you had better ask a passenger if they want their lawns mowed." I was on the train with a mate and looked up when I heard the words in my ear "Tickets please." I replied "I don't need a ticket." "Why not." said the burly ticket inspector. "Because I asked this bloke if he needed his lawn mowed" pointing across to the opposite seat where my mate was sitting "and he said 'No' isn't that correct?" "Yes" said Rick. I continued "And you do not want me taking your employer to court for false advertising do you?" The ticket inspector said quietly with his eyes towards the floor "I have never heard that one before" and walked away with his work mates.
But, fellow Victorian members, remember this because it is extremely important. Learn you rights as much as possible, because when the true Vic premier Peter Ryan returns from New York everything will dramatically change unless you know your rights. He is returning with knowledge to ZERO TOLERANCE policies. And believe me, zero tolerance is just that, "ZERO" and unless you are prepared you can go to gaol for driving one kilometre over the speed limit.
I am so sick of public servants and their desire for power. We are the masters, they our servants and we have to remind everybody, the masters and the servants. I believe we should starve them out of their ivory towers. The secret is taxation! Let's look at THe United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Think of all the businesses throughout Australia collecting GST everyday, then at the end of the working day filling out all the taxation paper work and Bass statements. We do not receive payment for this so it is slavery and illegal. So let us get the word out there, and any company that is still willing to collect it from us we ban. There will be plenty of small Australian businesses that will join in because they will finally be competitive to those multi-national companies who will continue to collect GST while bringing down our US government controlled politicians. Enjoy, Karu
This is meant to read.
It is a pity they removed the ad "If you do not buy a ticket you had better ask a passenger if they want their lawns mowed." I was on the train with a mate and looked up when I heard the words in my ear "Tickets please." I replied "I don't need a ticket." "Why not." said the burly ticket inspector. "Because I asked this bloke if he needed his lawn mowed" pointing across to the opposite seat where my mate was sitting "and asked him 'Isn't that correct?" "Yes" said Rick. I continued "And you do not want me taking your employer to court for false advertising do you?" The ticket inspector said quietly with his eyes towards the floor "I have never heard that one before" and walked away with his work mates.
KARU, mate, it is blatently obvious that you have no legal background or any fundamental understanding of jurisprudence. Yeah, jurisprudence, look it up... on what basis are you giving advice to people that they are not obliged to stop for a police officer unless you know you have a warrant!!! That is just ridiculous, I can give you an A4 sheet of paper of police powers to lawfully stop and detain a person. This Flinders Street case mention, makes no sense in the way you are relaying it. Secondly, the common law, statute law and the american codified law are all very different areas of regulation and law. is not superior to statute law, that is basic law101, infact statute is based on case law (common law). Case law being previous judgements, specificly of the highest court which is followed to keep same regularity in judgements. Mate I can't stop reading, its like a train wreck. Sorry for being so critical about your post, but you really are way off the mark.
Oh my god, just came across the paragraph where you state you can't defend a fine - wrong. The paragraph of the ticket inspector gave me a smile, you were lucky on that day. You weren't fined because, he couldn't be bothered or you tickled his sense of humour with your 'defense', not because you were right.
Freedom of movement, Karu, have you driven on NSW roads. Mate, I love driving down south or north cause the roads in Vic and Qld are just beautiful for my Alfa. You see, in NSW we must not be paying any rego or licensing cause no one is spending any money on our roads. Occasionally you see a couple of stout fellas shoveling some black sticky stuff into a hole which soon disapears out of it so that they can come back from the last hole they filled.
Traffic enforcement is always a political hot cake. The helicopter enforcement envisaged is certainly a pathetic knee jerk reaction. I've said it before on this forum, if the politicians we serious about road trauma, they would have more police on the roads to stop vehicles at the time of the breach. Cameras have simply become a cash cow for revenue. The majority if fines are paid, no ongoing wages or costs associated with an enforcement officer, and so on. Infact cameras in NSW were doing so well for the majority of society, that people were beginning to be suspended and stopped driving on our roads(cause laws are made for those who obey them?), couldn't have that, lets give them extra points so they can get an extra fine before they loose their licence!!! A couple of decades ago, in a quite little mid north coast NSW town of Kempsey a couple of buses came a cropper. The outcry, political promises and extra taxes are still here, and the highway is still there too. Actually I think I noticed a piece of tail light lens still at Kempsey... A pet peeve I have at the moment are parking meters and restriction on street parking in Sydney. You'll find restrictions here are up to 3k's from a point of transport or business district. In Parramatta I used to park in a ticket 10hr area and walk almost 1k to my office. Over a year ago, having never seen any trace of enforcement I stopped paying, parked in the 2hr non ticketed area (casue they have to come back) and have had trouble free parking ever since. A workmate thought it was a great idea and got caught out in his first fortnight, hah. Still, the $88 fine is 12 days of parking!
I could rant on, but I'd just be repeating what everyone else is saying above. Yes even you Karu, your sentiment is that administrative governemnt is intoxicated with and has gone bonkers in the abuse of power, and to a point I agree :)
You are right Cool Jesus, I would not want members to take my advice and fail to pull over when asked to by cops. In your State you are likely to get shot, tasered and bashed to death by them. You are correct with my lack of trained legal knowledge, but I spend many, many hours studying law. I have read the well hidden from the Australian people our wonderful 1008 page Australian Constitution that is now a 38 page booklet with a copyright (It is now owned by the government and one must ask permission to relay any part of it and always without success, I know.) It tells us that the PM must be chosen by the Cabinet, and it must be the person who relates best with the people. It tells us we do not live under the Westminster system, but a hybrid system based on the US, Canadian and other great constitutions.
I am aware of the pathetic road fixing system in NSW. And when I lived in a beautiful place on the far south coast it wasn't the rego that concerned me, but the privately owned green slip policy. The NSW police swear to protect the public and yet they protect the private companies when you do not have a green slip. This caused police officers concern when I told one that and he relayed it to other cops.
Hey guys with all due respect, I suspect we are somewhat straying from the topic into areas of somewhat dubious working knowledge of and/orapplication of law.
I am also not a lawyer, but as a Senior Public Servant (yes I am one of those people) who works in Environmental Regulation (EPA), I do have a reasonable working knowledge of the law and some of the basic principles, (especially of that law that I need to be able to apply and enforce) behind law.
My point being I thought the topic was a discussion about Police enforcing speed limits, which they do, and I would be damned certain they actually have the legal powers to do so. My issue was not so much with that per say, but rather the politics behind it (ie. how the Pollies react to blatant media sensationalism behind crashes and hooning, the public in general's views on this etc). Pollies by their very nature are mostly reactionary animals and will pander to the common denominator, that being the notion speeding causes accidents and use of cameras etc will therefore by their logic fix the problem. It doesn't as I think most rational people will realise. Hence the use of cameras is a drug for revenue raising rather than solutions to the real causes. Which as we also well know is due to a multitude of reasons.
My view (personal one) is that car club's, CAMS etc should and can have a role to play in both educating drivers and also perhaps from a public relations role to provide the counter point view, every time some Pollie or Senior Police person makes their usual rant about how they are going to solve the problem of road trauma. That is, that the band aid solutions being offered don't and can't actually work, the real solution is education and better training etc. It is a longer term solution but one which can work and help to reduce the risk of crashes. Not not eliminate such events as I doubt this is at all possible given we are human and therefore prone to making mistakes.
I thought this forum was for conversation purposes, I did not know we had to stick to the subject so thoroughly.
I know people think laws are laws but what if they are wrong, what if they are illegal?
Being able to study law personally has given me far greater knowledge than if I had studied in University, sure, I cannot earn money from it but I am not interested in that, and if I could represent people I would lose my position on the BAR real quick.
Let's look at a recent NSW Supreme Court Case.
RUMBEL v LIVERPOOL PLAINS COUNCIL
In the Supreme Court of New South Wales very recently at end of 2011, in the matter of RUMBELv LIVERPOOL PLAINS COUCIL and ORS, the CEO of the council faced 58 charges of stealingand 1 case of breaking and entering with intent to steal. The Council Ranger faced multiplecharges as did the council; environmental officer. Two members of the NSW police FORCE face102 charges each and one of them is facing 30 years in jail. Two private tow truck operators face 58 charges each, 29 counts of stealing and 29 counts of failing to follow the lawful procedure for moving vehicles on the road.This all stems from the council making a purposeful decision to breach the law. RUMBEL had 58 second hand cars on his property on the edge of the town of Quirindi, NSW. On the day inquestion the CEO and his band of thieves turned up, cut the chains locking the gate and enteredand stole 58 vehicles. Luckily for RUMBEL he knew his Common Law well and engaged a QueensCounsel from London. The matter played out on the Supreme Court of NSW where the first 5 judges said they worked for the corporation" known as New South Wales and the 6th said she worked for The People. The QC removed the first 5 judges as they were, as he put it, "a nothing".The result has been pleasing for The People and the CEO was ordered to transfer all LIVERPOOLPLAINS COUNCIL assets to the NSW State Government and the rest of the defendants were well advised to get their affairs in order as they would be responsible for paying the tens of millions of dollars in compensation, and none of the compensation would come from the rate payers of that council. The matter was then uplifted by the judge to the High Court of Australia for confirmation of thecompensation to be paid and that will be heard on the 21st May 2012.The QC concerned is a world authority on trespass and demonstrated to the Supreme Court of NSW that for some decades no legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia has received Royal Assent and is therefore invalid and inoperative. The private lawyer from Lismore engaged by the LIVERPOOL PLAINS COUNCIL, at one stage rose to claim he had a copy of the NSW LocalGovernment ACT 1993 and the QC advised that it had not received Royal Accent and wasworthless. He apparently tore it in half and dropped it on the Court floor. Apparently the Judge agreed with the world authority on trespass. Ignorance of the Law is NO Excuse, not even for cops.
I do not want to be judged on the following concerning the Queen, I am not a follower of The Lord, his son and his Bible, but this is a real and very important impending Court case which must have a Jury. This is an extremely worrying time for the establishment.
It is long so you do not have to read it, but some of you might want to arm yourself with this knowledge.
John Anthony Hill: The 7/7 Ripple Effects Begin: Bring Down Queen Elizabeth & The New World Order!
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
Elizabeth Mountbatten swore on and kissed the Sovereign's Holy Bible that contains The Law and verses just quoted, at her fraudulent coronation, "to faithfully serve God and the people for the rest of her life". Faithfully serving God means obeying Him and His Law, and, the first time she gave "Royal Assent" to any piece of legislation, she broke that solemn Coronation Oath and so was no longer the sovereign, with immediate effect, even if she had been crowned on the real Coronation Stone and had ever really been the sovereign, which she never was and is not.
For those who might claim that they are Christians and that The Laws no longer apply, I will quote you Christ's own words on this subject:-
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all (the prophecies) be fulfilled.
REGINA/THE QUEEN
V
JAH
LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEREIGNTY
1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's Fraudulent Coronation.
1. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob's Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film "The Coronation Stone", (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: "No Stone Unturned" (pages 36, 44), "A Touch of Treason" (page 50) and "The Taking of The Stone of Destiny" (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm .
2. The real Coronation Stone ("National Treasure No. 1"), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton's books – "No Stone Unturned" and "The Taking of The Stone of Destiny", and the factory-manager, when I visited him.
3. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew's Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the "queen's" coronation, according to Bertie Gray's children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.
Link to Daily Record article
1. The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled "The Stone of Destiny", "Symbol of Nationhood", obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Major's Conservative government in 1996.
2. As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone, for that and other reasons, that I will go into in great and minute detail later, during the hearing on 9th May 2011.
Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge's "authority" comes from her.
Further, and without prejudice to the above...
2. Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's other Crimes.
Sample Crimes/Points of Law:-
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob's Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called "crown" is attacking the Defendant with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendant.
2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God's Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave "Royal-Assent" to ANY "Act of Parliament", or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
7. Ignoring the "Year of Release," where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the "Year of Jubilee" every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people.
Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; ...
Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, "No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God."
All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereign's Bible (Exhibit 2) upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1) was sworn (all emphasis mine), containing God's Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1).
11. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power.
Our Queen swore to protect her God's laws. I certainly wouldn't wish to see us return to his demonic laws of having to kill your child if she/he disobeys you, but it is a way out of this mess of which we have allowed to have been created. So, you can see that the establishment are extremely scared of this impending Court case. And all man made laws are illegal if we have to swear on the Bible in Court. The Bible tells us that no one man can judge and we have to have a jury; The Magistrates Court is null and void. We have the Perrin Court in Victoria where no one can defend themselves.
I realise that this may seem nutty of me to insert this, but I like to keep up with interesting Court cases as all I wish for all of us is freedom. I will leave you with this to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7PQG5weeHk
Quote from: Karu on April 24, 2012, 08:22:55 AM
You are right Cool Jesus, I would not want members to take my advice and fail to pull over when asked to by cops. In your State you are likely to get shot, tasered and bashed to death by them.
Bwah ha ha ... touche Karu ;D
Keep studying mate, this time your starting to making sense with our constitution.
PS keep your replies short, you won't engage your audience otherwise. Your incorrect about Green Slips and again NSW Police don't swear to protect the public :P
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/pr2008166/s7.html (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/pr2008166/s7.html)
The guys are right, its a car forum not a law lecture. I'll stop chimming in from here on. Karu, If you every need any advice on law PM me, happy to help.
OMG just had a quick scan of your essay, where do you get this sh*t?
THE RACV wants the West Gate Bridge $peed camera$ turned back on - 6 years after they were turned off, [secretly], the RACV says the narrow lanes, heavy traffic and high number of crashes make the Victorian bridge the most appropriate road to crack down on leadfoot drivers.
Vicroads data shows that the bridge carries up to 160,000 cars per day and 24,000 trucks. The West Gate $peed camera$ were $witched ob in 2005 and the 2.5 km stretch was dubbed 'Golden Gate' after the Goverment coffers $welled with $330,000 in fines after 1 month.
The eight money maker$ were turned off 6 months later, but didn't tell the public for 2 years.
The multi million $$$$ camera$ were switched off after they become unreliable in the wind and inaccurate.
A Department of Justice $poke$man said no money had been spent repairing the camera$ or their upkeep since being turned off.
The RACV's public policy general manager Brian Negus said the Goverment needed to decide whether to take the camera$ down or to $witch them back on.
With that significant volume of traffic and 5 lanes and a tight cross section, you don't want drivers exceeding the $peed limit, Colin.
Further moron this, Road $afety campaigner Norm Robinson backed the RACV for the camera$ to be turned on.
And he wants to go further with $peed trap$ to be placed either side of the bridge.
Police say despite sitting idle, the camera$ still deter motorists from $peeding.
We know the mere presence of the camera$ is a strong deterrent for any motorist to $peed, regardless of whether the camera$ are active or not, a police $poke$person said.
Vicroad'$ regional director Patricia Liew said there were no plan$ to remove the camera$.
The camera$ snapped more than 17,000 $peeding vehicles in $ix month$, but only 4,200 fines were issued because of quality problems.
Stolen from the Herald Sun by Colin.
I don't quite see the point of this thread; would you just like to speed with impunity? Or are you just frustrated that you can't get away with it like you could in the 'good old days'?
I've done a fair bit of driving in this state, and I've gotta say that, with a few exceptions, they have the speed limits worked out pretty well for the condition of the roads, and volume of traffic.
When I was younger I also used to drive like a madman on mostly deserted NZ roads. I shudder to think now that I did 240km/h on country roads on my motorbike, and I thought I was perfectly safe. I wasn't, obviously, at any time a farmer could have pulled out of his drive....
I despair sometimes at the lack of driving knowledge of everyone else, but until they do something about driver training I'll just suck it up, and get my fun either on the racetrack or on deserted outback roads in a shitbox.... I suggest you do the same if you're not enjoying the current state of affairs.
Peace out
Sheldon
Yes Sheldon, the speed limits are about right for the poor standard of driving we are tought in Australia, but the problem i have is having cameras at the bottom of hills and out on the open road, and getting done for 3 klms over the limit and thousands of motorists getting done on a stretch of [any] freeway, are there really that many criminals out there on the roads, like i said, i reckon if they don't get the money out of us by speed cameras, they will whack rego's up or increase licence fees, and i have been 'done' for exceeding the speed limit twice since 1975, Colin.
All traffic fines have been announced to go up 15% by the Vic government, on the news tonight.
Tell me about getting done 3kms over, I take it as part of the taxation system. Mmmm, I think I am hooning at 3 kms over. Now if I fitted Bridgestone donuts, I can actually stop faster and better.
Ever seen the TAC ad about not being able to stop and avoid collision despite doing the speed limit, then directly followed by the Bridgestone ad about steering and stopping better with their donuts.
Driver Education and skills training are the key.
AROCA Vic has been on about this for years (now over 10 years of consecutive running), with success at all our DT days each year, now twice a year. What are you doing about it. Get involved.
Guys I think theres a real problem with this thread.
A whole lot of words and some real good mumbo jumbo that I have emensly enjoyed.
But at the end of the day all of these words just to remind us all that we are all screwed!!!!
I suggest you get yourself a Tom Tom GPS or similar and let the software tell you where the speed camera's and the like are.
Sorry I am probably not taking this topic seriously
1750GT
I recently read an article about a new radar detector. It can be mounted in a discrete position on/in a vehicle. Alerts are displayed on your mobile phone via bluetooth. Nice idea. Just saying.