Suggestions?

[EnSabahNur]

I recieved back (within 5 days?) the information I requested about my contract offers, and who signed the Default convictions with no binding contract. There are no signatures, but they have the Magistrate A. XXXXX on there.

I requested ALL documents, but there is no signature on any of these. Someone would have to sign something would they not? Or should I not care and simply proceed against the parties regardless.

Not sure where to go here, I seem to be breaking some new ground. Most of the Info on these sheets about the accused says N/A?

What a bunch of dillhole's, I cannot believe what a sham this stuff is.

[weishaupt1776]

Hey El, sounds cool. Could you please post ALL relative links to your case in other threads for more background?

So far it seems like they've agreed to it. Some redemption/UCC experts might be able to help.

Contact them & scan your docs .pdf style and email them to them

If you proceed against them, make it explicit that you have been irreparably harmed express that they have agreed. They didn't sign it because that's evidence that they agreed. Definitely a crossroads

[EnSabahNur]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Hey El, sounds cool. Could you please post ALL relative links to your case in other threads for more background?

So far it seems like they've agreed to it. Some redemption/UCC experts might be able to help.

Contact them & scan your docs .pdf style and email them to them

If you proceed against them, make it explicit that you have been irreparably harmed express that they have agreed. They didn't sign it because that's evidence that they agreed. Definitely a crossroads

I'm not sure what you mean by they did not sign it because it is evidence they agreed. Please elaborate...

But I will be going after them for damages "Commercial Lien" style. Going to open a can of financial 'whoop ass' on these dillhole's.

[rearguard]

You requested copies of all documents, yet there is none with a signature authorizing a default conviction. That seems like an impossibility to me, since someone would have to make such a decision. The only possibility is that some kind of procedure automatically authorizes the default conviction (by default) without the need for anyone to personally authorize. Did any of the documents come with a place for a signature, and did any of the documents have a government approved rubber stamp on them (is "Magistrate A. XXXXX" the rubber stamp)?

Another question is which of the N/A's mean Not Applicable or Not Available?

Some info I dug up for you ...

Bill 36–The Summary Convictions Amendment Act
Mr. Mackintosh: This amendment allows for a penalty of $35 per ticket when an accused fails to plead guilty voluntarily and pay the fine or challenge the ticket in court. The process is called a default conviction, and this would result in the judicial officer having to review a ticket and the court administration having to send additional notices to an accused to inform the individual of the conviction.

In general, if a person is default convicted, the court will have more difficulty collecting the fine, and therefore not only is the enforcement of legislation impaired, but of course the revenues that are due to the Province and to the public is affected.

For those fines where the court must go to a collection process, the additional penalty will only be as difficult to collect as the fine itself would be. The penalty will, however, help to offset the costs of proceeding to collection. Collection agencies currently charge 20 percent of each fine they collect and, in addition, the Department incurs other costs such as postage and salary costs to collect those fines.

The Province receives about 100 000 tickets per annum, of which about 20 percent is default convicted. The Department anticipates that adding the $35 penalty will go some way to reducing the number of defaults. The default, as well, does allow for the differentiation between those accused who choose to resolve the ticket within the given time requirements and those who choose to do nothing and force the Department to add a series of costly administrative tasks to the process. This kind of penalty is common. The City of Winnipeg, of course, imposes such a default penalty, as do other provinces.


Contraventions Act

If you go to court, you will lose by default, take a look at these transcripts.

[rearguard]

I just noticed this from my last post:

In general, if a person is default convicted, the court will have more difficulty collecting the fine

Why, what diff does it make with respect to collections if you are default convicted or not? In fact, why bother accepting their authority and contesting charges in court, and why bother agreeing to the charges and willingly paying the fines? Obviously, they want to make it easy to plead guilty and make payment vs not agreeing and refusing to make payment. The additional fine for a default conviction is intended to coerse people into reducing the fines by agreeing to it without any resistance. Is that what they mean by a default conviction being harder to collect?

Notice how the entire discusssion is about money, and nothing else, such as improving highway safety for example. The traffic courts look more like a commercial for profit venture than anything else.

[EnSabahNur]

Originally Posted by rearguard

I just noticed this from my last post:

In general, if a person is default convicted, the court will have more difficulty collecting the fine

Why, what diff does it make with respect to collections if you are default convicted or not? In fact, why bother accepting their authority and contesting charges in court, and why bother agreeing to the charges and willingly paying the fines? Obviously, they want to make it easy to plead guilty and make payment vs not agreeing and refusing to make payment. The additional fine for a default conviction is intended to coerse people into reducing the fines by agreeing to it without any resistance. Is that what they mean by a default conviction being harder to collect?

Notice how the entire discusssion is about money, and nothing else, such as improving highway safety for example. The traffic courts look more like a commercial for profit venture than anything else.

Harder to collect because there is no binding contract, and NO proof af any debt of any kind. In other words they're full of ****, they know it, and they can kiss my ass.

I am not sure what the N/A means, it does not say.... and it is nothing more than a simple computer generated, and printed, check sheet with absolutely nothing else on it. The corresponding circles are clicked off, and that is about it. So, they either are incredibly stupid....or they think I am.... but I did ask for all papers...... meaning they either have none and had to print something off.... or they are guilty of obstructing justice for holding documents and not disclosing them.

They must know that if there is a signature somewhere that I have recourse against that individual (since my letter stated that), so they are not sending them.

[EnSabahNur]

Originally Posted by rearguard

If you go to court, you will lose by default, take a look at these transcripts.

I just read through those, and that is some pretty infuriating stuff. And people wonder why I have zilch respect for anything to do with this system......pathetic. I would have told this jackass to go **** himself.

[rearguard]

I found this part very telling ...

THE COURT: Thank you, your motion is denied. It has no merit at all.
MS. VASEV: I am sure none of them have this morning.
THE COURT: Just a minute, what did you say?
MS. VASEV: Well --
THE COURT: What did you say? Repeat it. What did you say?
MS. VASEV: I said thank you for your understanding.
THE COURT: I beg your pardon?
MS. VASEV: Thank you for your understanding.
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be careful what you say, this is a court of law.

If it was a court of law, then it would have to respect freedom of expression, which clearly it does not.

Based on everything I've seen to date, it seems that what you are doing is the logical approach. Basically you have three options:

1) You agree with the "charges" and submit to their authority on a voluntary basis. In other words, you go along with the program that is handed to you (and the implied threats that go along with it). You will walk away poorer than before, but with a "clean slate" and can expect no more harassment by the state until your number comes up again (and it eventually will).

2) You do nothing and ignore them. However you will be accepting their offers to contract by acquiescence, which is not a good thing to do. They will come after you and claim that you agreed to plead quilty by not refusing their offers by the specified due date. Note: I do believe there was a court case where promotional newspapers were handed out for free with an option to subscribe for a year and agreed to by phone call. If the receiver did not refuse the offer by a certain date, he automatically subscribed for a year by acquiescence. The newspaper lost the court case. Do you remember this?

3) You actively refuse their offers, but you do so without arguing the case otherwise you will of agreed to be bound by their authority. If you follow options 1 and 2, then you ARE going by the program. With option 3, you are not following the program because at no point are you ever accepting their offers or their authority. If the court finds you "guilty by default", then exactly how did it find you guilty? At no point have you admited that you agree with the contract offer, and at no point have you accepted the contract offer by acquiescence. All they can do is say you are "guilty by default" because they say so, and they cannot say that you are "guilty" because of anything that you have done, or failed to do. As you have pointed out, no one is saying that your are "guilty" since all you have is a computer printout with no signatures on it. Did the computer make the decision?

The question remains of what to do next, assuming that there is something to do.

I'll suggest that instead of remaining in limbo, you may want to go on the offensive and demand clarification as to who exactly authorized the forced contract offer directive (including proof). Offer them your own contract offer, where they must respond by a certain date otherwise they will of agreed to drop the claims against you and reimburse you for all of your expenses (or whatever makes sense to you).

Thoughts?

[EnSabahNur]

Originally Posted by rearguard

I found this part very telling ...



If it was a court of law, then it would have to respect freedom of expression, which clearly it does not.

Based on everything I've seen to date, it seems that what you are doing is the logical approach. Basically you have three options:

1) You agree with the "charges" and submit to their authority on a voluntary basis. In other words, you go along with the program that is handed to you (and the implied threats that go along with it). You will walk away poorer than before, but with a "clean slate" and can expect no more harassment by the state until your number comes up again (and it eventually will).

2) You do nothing and ignore them. However you will be accepting their offers to contract by acquiescence, which is not a good thing to do. They will come after you and claim that you agreed to plead quilty by not refusing their offers by the specified due date. Note: I do believe there was a court case where promotional newspapers were handed out for free with an option to subscribe for a year and agreed to by phone call. If the receiver did not refuse the offer by a certain date, he automatically subscribed for a year by acquiescence. The newspaper lost the court case. Do you remember this?

3) You actively refuse their offers, but you do so without arguing the case otherwise you will of agreed to be bound by their authority. If you follow options 1 and 2, then you ARE going by the program. With option 3, you are not following the program because at no point are you ever accepting their offers or their authority. If the court finds you "guilty by default", then exactly how did it find you guilty? At no point have you admited that you agree with the contract offer, and at no point have you accepted the contract offer by acquiescence. All they can do is say you are "guilty by default" because they say so, and they cannot say that you are "guilty" because of anything that you have done, or failed to do. As you have pointed out, no one is saying that your are "guilty" since all you have is a computer printout with no signatures on it. Did the computer make the decision?

The question remains of what to do next, assuming that there is something to do.

I'll suggest that instead of remaining in limbo, you may want to go on the offensive and demand clarification as to who exactly authorized the forced contract offer directive (including proof). Offer them your own contract offer, where they must respond by a certain date otherwise they will of agreed to drop the claims against you and reimburse you for all of your expenses (or whatever makes sense to you).

Thoughts?

Yes, I have all the evidence I need now, and I plan on going on the offensive. They will have to provide proof of their claim, and they have none. It is very cut and dry. But, I am not in a huge rush. I still have 14 days to go until this individual defaults on my request for the requested documents, and then I will proceed with Obstruction of Justice, since my demand was obviously very clear, and very formal.

I am consulting a few other minds on the matter. I want something in the way of a first strike knockout, to set a precedent.

It seems that I no longer get Photo radar tickets, it has been months now since I purposely went out and got a bunch, so I must be ruffling some feathers. We are guessing that I have been flagged to not be mailed them any longer? I don't know, there does not seem to be any other explanation?

[rearguard]

It seems that I no longer get Photo radar tickets

Are these speeding tickets or running red light tickets? Here in BC they got rid of the speeding photo radar, but have beefed up the red light photo system (this is not radar of course), so I assume you mean speeding tickets.

I know that you have to be served otherwise the photo radar ticket is meaningless. They probably are not mailing the tickets to you because they know that you know that you can ingore them (I bit my tongue on that one).

It is not cost effective to have people running around knocking on doors and serving them with papers. BC tried that, and once enough people caught on, they just sat on their tickets waiting to be served, I think that eventually it became clear that the program was a money loser, so it got scrapped. It was also used as an election bribe - which I thought was halarious when the gov imposes a stupid law, then promises to remove it if you vote for them. Same kind of thing when a gov tries to bribe the people with their own tax money.

But I digress ...