Thursday, August 23, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The number of car crashes at two Wollongong black spots has increased since speed cameras were installed.A review of the state’s fixed, mobile, safety and point-to-point speed camera network has found the overwhelming majority have led to a reduction in accidents, injuries and deaths.
But in Wollongong, the installation of fixed cameras a decade ago on Memorial Dr (formerly Northern Distributor) at Corrimal and the Southern Freeway near the University of Wollongong has been met with respective 12 and 14 per cent rises in crashes.
The number of accidents at four Illawarra intersections where safety cameras were installed last April - at a total cost to the taxpayer of about $1 million - has also risen.
A camera on the corner of the Princes Hwy and O’Briens Rd in Figtree failed to prevent a 112per cent increase in the annual average number of crashes and a 254per cent surge in the annual average number of injuries.
A new camera on the corner of Windang Rd and Boronia Ave in Windang coincided with a 220per cent average increase in crashes, while another targeting the intersection of Corrimal St and Burelli St in Wollongong has seen an average 50 per cent annual increase in accidents.
Road safety authorities said a longer and more ‘‘comprehensive analysis’’ was required before any conclusion could be made about the effectiveness of safety cameras.
Across NSW, the number of crashes at intersections monitored by these types of cameras has fallen an average 21 per cent.
The review’s release has also revealed the NSW Centre for Road Safety will spend the next year reviewing the Princes Hwy to identify locations for new speed cameras.
Roads Minister Duncan Gay yesterday released the audit - the first of its type in NSW.
It found 92 of the state’s 97 fixed speed cameras have improved road safety.
At fixed speed camera locations, fatalities have dropped 87 per cent, crashes 38 per cent and injuries 37 per cent.
Authorities will further probe the five fixed cameras that have not created any significant improvement, including the one on Memorial Dr, to see if they should be removed or relocated.
But in Wollongong, the installation of fixed cameras a decade ago on Memorial Dr (formerly Northern Distributor) at Corrimal and the Southern Freeway near the University of Wollongong has been met with respective 12 and 14 per cent rises in crashes.
The number of accidents at four Illawarra intersections where safety cameras were installed last April - at a total cost to the taxpayer of about $1 million - has also risen.
A camera on the corner of the Princes Hwy and O’Briens Rd in Figtree failed to prevent a 112per cent increase in the annual average number of crashes and a 254per cent surge in the annual average number of injuries.
A new camera on the corner of Windang Rd and Boronia Ave in Windang coincided with a 220per cent average increase in crashes, while another targeting the intersection of Corrimal St and Burelli St in Wollongong has seen an average 50 per cent annual increase in accidents.
Road safety authorities said a longer and more ‘‘comprehensive analysis’’ was required before any conclusion could be made about the effectiveness of safety cameras.
Across NSW, the number of crashes at intersections monitored by these types of cameras has fallen an average 21 per cent.
The review’s release has also revealed the NSW Centre for Road Safety will spend the next year reviewing the Princes Hwy to identify locations for new speed cameras.
Roads Minister Duncan Gay yesterday released the audit - the first of its type in NSW.
It found 92 of the state’s 97 fixed speed cameras have improved road safety.
At fixed speed camera locations, fatalities have dropped 87 per cent, crashes 38 per cent and injuries 37 per cent.
Authorities will further probe the five fixed cameras that have not created any significant improvement, including the one on Memorial Dr, to see if they should be removed or relocated.
‘‘We’re determined to ensure speed cameras are only in locations where they have a proven road safety benefit and that they are not simply there as revenue raisers,’’ Mr Gay said.
The Memorial Dr camera has netted $783,000 in fines since 2004-05.
The camera on the Southern Freeway near the university is not being reviewed because while accidents have increased, injuries have fallen substantially.
A NSW Centre for Road Safety spokeswoman said no cameras would be switched off until ‘‘we have looked at the locations closely, considered the views of the community and looked at alternative measures to improve road safety’’.
“The cameras will continue to operate until the comprehensive reviews are completed and alternative work for the area is identified,’’ she said. The review will be completed by February 2013.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/accidents-increase-despite-cameras/2627620.aspx
The Memorial Dr camera has netted $783,000 in fines since 2004-05.
The camera on the Southern Freeway near the university is not being reviewed because while accidents have increased, injuries have fallen substantially.
A NSW Centre for Road Safety spokeswoman said no cameras would be switched off until ‘‘we have looked at the locations closely, considered the views of the community and looked at alternative measures to improve road safety’’.
“The cameras will continue to operate until the comprehensive reviews are completed and alternative work for the area is identified,’’ she said. The review will be completed by February 2013.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/accidents-increase-despite-cameras/2627620.aspx
As posted earlier below as a teaser by Mark Darwin, we can confirm that YES we had a Truthology member WIN in the magistrates court here in Queensland yesterday when arguing the legitimacy of a traffic camera speeding fine.
This victory could potentially have wide ranging effects as a precedent. Why? Because it shows what we have suspected: it is highly unlikely that the Queensland Police are unable to issue any traffic camera infringement notices in the manner they have been doing so for as long as can work out ...... perhaps since inception! That said, sadly, it will probably be short lived as I’m certain that they will move VERY quickly to shut this down without doubt!
But nevertheless, it is a significant win, and perhaps the beginning of the winds of change in bringing reform to our system.
The man challenging the infringement issued to him, and doing the arguing, was no other than WA Lawyer Warren Black, a fellow Truth teacher and Truthology member, and we can assure you that he was on fire yesterday in the court !
Let me tell you, it takes big balls to walk into THEIR court and challenge them head on, especially when it has to do with their ‘lawful and legal’ ability (under their interpretation) as to whether or not they have the right to do so, and especially as he has so much to lose being a lawyer presently licensed under their system. He performed admirably to say the least, I was there, and enjoyed every minute of it.
The alleged infringement was issued by the QLD Police, and was for the sum of $150 and a loss of 3 points, for allegedly exceeding the posted speed limit by only 14kms per hour.
It was quite amusing that in the early stages of the trial, a young police prosecutor spoke directly to Warren. He tried belittling the attempt as a complete waste of time and resources for all concerned, that Warren should just pay the fine and be done with it, and had little chance of success, and the result for the effort did not warrant Warrens outcome! Needless to say, Warren let that slide and continued on with the matter at hand.
Now in this instance, Warren was arguing a number of points. The main issue that Warren was arguing was that the infringement was issued under the personal name of the officer concerned, a local Police Sergeant, supposedly on behalf of the Queensland Police force. However, as Warren pointed out, there is currently NO AUTHORITY or LEGISLATION in Queensland of any sort in place the grants this person, the right to do so, and even if it did, it must be clear that the police officer is doing the prosecution on behalf of the relevant authority, eg. Queensland Police, the Crown or State.
An example or analogy of this argument is, as the magistrate pointed out to the police during the trial, “what would stop me as the magistrate, Mr Bloggs, from going to a Justice of the Peace and stating that i saw you doing 75km per hour in and 60km zone, and then issuing a summons against you? There has to be some authority or head of power to do this!”
The Police tried to duck and dive, and circumvent this in every way possible, bringing up other issues, but to the Magistrate’s credit, he remained firm and told the Police to answer Warren’s question and provide the relevant proof.
Warren also raised some other points.
He raised the point that the Queensland Police, SPUR, the Crown, the Queensland Government, are separate entities, yet somehow all involved in the issued infringement. He raised the point that for an entity or Government to raise an infringement, it had to be written in legislation as under any kind of criminal law, an offence had to be clearly specified, and the chain of legislative authority as to who ultimately prosecuted had to be clear. He wanted clarified as to who was who, and what role they all played in this infringement, and where they were mentioned in legislation or regulations. Again, to the Magistrate’s credit, he agreed with Warren, however this argument was not explored in depth, nor was it ruled upon.
He also raised the point that if the matter was criminal and not civil, the issue was, who was harmed and suffered loss as a result of the alleged infringement and who was the accuser in the matter? (as previously outlined in our website templates) If the Police Sergeant issued the charge, was he personally harmed, and if not, who was harmed, and which entity did he represent! Again the Magistrate agreed, and insisted the Police show their authority.
What was amusing was there were 5 (FIVE) Police officers in the court yesterday, including the head of Brisbane's Traffic Camera Branch (so we believe). The trial went from 9.30am till 3pm with more than 6 adjournments, (requested by the police) so that they could find ANY legislation or Authority (which they couldn't) to hang their hat on and make their case. They literally tried EVERYTHING to find it….. let me assure you it was EMBARRASSING to watch them squirm for SO long and the prosecutor was forever saying…”can we just adjourn for 5 minutes so i can ring my boss”…SERIOUSLY !!!
The lengths they went to were extraordinary, and they even tried to withdraw the infringement, and issue a 'bench warrant' on the spot to get around it. As correctly pointed out by the Magistrate, this action would be an abuse of process and he instantly rejected it!
What was fantastic about this case was the Magistrate was very fair and unbiased and was firm on both Warren and the Police about procedural fairness, and following the law. He seemed quite amused at the police incompetence in trying to justify their position, and granted them more than enough time and adjournments to try and get a result. He even appeared to give them a chance to withdraw the charge, which they refused to do, and at one stage, he suggested to Warren with some humour that he may wish to “plead guilty to bring this veil of tears to an end”!
Ultimately the Police dodged a bullet, as the matter was won on another issue. The Police tried to adduce camera evidence, however, Warren challenged it on the basis that the Police had not provided him with witness statements from the camera operator. The Magistrate agreed, and excluded the evidence, so the Police had no evidence to base a charge. The Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the charges, and then grant all costs to Warren for his troubles.
Warren literally had them on the back foot for the entire trial, and then slowly on the ropes, then on their knees, and finally WHAMO .....KO'd !!!!!! a truly fantastic result.
It is important to note, that in Western Australia, they DO have this power outlined in their legislation. You can bet after yesterdays court win, that Queensland will pass similar legislation for future use … so if you are challenging speeding fines now… and want to use this argument and be QUICK about it!.... you will have to check for yourselves in all other states.
What also happened was Warren and I had a number of talks with the Police there, and as time went on , we became more and more friendly. Warren made it clear to the Police that he was totally supportive of road safety, however, he did not agree with a system that undermined the rights of citizens, and swung the balance too favour in favour of the Police. What was interesting was a few of the Police agreed with us, and were very open to where we were coming from!
So all up, an encouraging outcome, and a hearty CONGRATULATIONS on a great job to Warren Black for taking a stand and allowing us to all share in the results!
If you would like to contact Warren Black directly, to enquire about his legal service or his Public Speaking engagements and seminars, his firms details are listed on our site under the SERVICES heading, and then click on the Partner Links.
http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/posts/333-huge-win-in-court-over-speeding-infringement
http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/posts/333-huge-win-in-court-over-speeding-infringement
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Posted on July 28, 2012 by itccs
The Common Law Court of Justice investigating Crimes of Church and State
Public Declaration to Police Officers, Civil Servants and other Agents of the Crown of England – Issued by the Judicial Oversight Panel of the Common Law Court of Justice investigating Crimes of Church and State (Brussels – London)
On September 15, 2012, an International Common Law Court, duly constituted under the Law of Nations, will be convened to consider evidence and hear charges of Crimes against Humanity brought against the Crown of England, the Vatican and other parties.In the event that the Crown is convicted in this duly constituted Court for such crimes as Genocide, Child Trafficking and waging a War of Aggression against indigenous nations, your continued allegiance and service of this convicted party will constitute criminal collusion and obstruction of justice.
Prior to committing such an indictable offense, you wil be asked by this Court to refrain from implicating yourselves with such criminal parties by assuming a position of neutrality in relation to the Crown of England as a possible party to a crime.
As servants of the Public Peace and Welfare rather than of a potentially convicted authority, you will be asked by this Court to place yourselves at the service of a fair and impartial investigation of documented crimes involving the Crown of England.
Accordingly, this Court will be requiring police officers in Canada, England, Australia and other nations to assist it in presenting summonses and other warrants to Crown officials, to aid this Court in the pursuit of justice and due process, and to enforce any verdicts and decisions of this Court regarding the culpability of the Crown for Crimes against Humanity.
This Court will also require that in the course of this trial and upon summary conviction of the Crown, civil servants cease and desist from collecting taxes and administering laws on behalf of the Crown of England and its client governments in Canada, England, Australia and elsewhere, lest by such assisting of parties convicted of Crimes against Humanity these civil servants violate international law and the verdicts of this Court.
If you officers continue to serve as agents of the Crown under these circumstances, you will have betrayed your public trust and responsibility, and disqualified yourselves from holding public office.
In such a eventuality, you may face summary arrest and trial for aiding and abetting those engaged in Crimes against Humanity.
We trust that you will fulfill what is lawful and just, and stand with our Court of Common Law Justice as duly sworn Public Peace Officers. To ensure this compliance, your officers will be approached by agents of our Court to take such an Oath of Service. We expect your cooperation in this matter.
Issued by the Judicial Oversight Panel of the Common Law Court of Justice investigating Crimes of Church and State (Brussels – London)
http://itccs.org/2012/07/28/public-declaration-to-police-officers-civil-servants-and-other-agents-of-the-crown-of-england/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
