wrt the imputations:
(a) They will likely win. I can't see you proving the council is acting unlawfully. Regardless of the merits of your argument, the justice system recognises councils have a legitimate role to play in our community. You will not convince a judge otherwise.
(b) Not sure you can prove he is wrong. Your car overhangs the road at the front. Technically I suspect the ranger is correct, though I have not read the WA road rules to confirm this statement.
(c) Hmm, interesting one. Many right thinking members of the community do not like parking officers so not sure they'll be successful saying you're lowering people's opinions any further than they already are.
I'd be removing the video, and apologising. Not sure I'd pay any money, well, maybe a dollar. The alternative of going to court is not a good experience and likely costly. There is an argument that council would be wasting funds chasing you at court over a matter like this when an apology has already been made. ie not a proper use of public money.
re: Local councils. Councils/cities/etc existed in England well before the concept was exported to Australian colonies. Australia, when it comes to British settlement, existed as a number of independent colonies which morphed into States. The ability of councils/municipalities to generate rates and taxes has always existed and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. The 1988 referendum was more about the Cth trying to remove powers from the States, not recognising local councils. The Hawke Government was frustrated with State resistance to his/Keating's reform plans and saw recognising councils would be one way to bypass State control in many areas. There was some thinking at the time that a 3 tiered system of government was excessive and that 2 tiers would be better (Cth and local councils - no States).
Any argument you try to raise about legitimacy of local councils at court will severely lower your credibility.
With an apology I'd be saying the ranger committed offences as well - driving off with no blinker, arm outside window waving a piece of paper. Cops say it is unsafe to drive without 2 hands on the steering wheel. Then I'd be suggesting the matter end with the apology.
Yea your probably right about trying to prove that councils are unlawful wouldn't do me any favours in court.
when I received the 3rd ticket which I'm going to make a second video about it, I went strait to the council with my camera and confronted them about it.
They didn't like me filming say this is a privet building and your not allowed to film supposedly in a public lobby ( feels like dictatorship china)
I informed them I was well within my right to record and document my appeal.
As I was getting nowhere with my appeal via email I met with the coordinator manager there and I explained to her if she can prove how clause 3.2 (Parking and stopping on a carriageway) applies to my vehicle when I'm not actually on the road. I also informed her that it says nothing about protruding into to the carriageway or overhanging. I also said if you can show me that I'm incorrect, I am more then happy to pay all 3 fines right now at the cashier.
She smiled and walked of with my infringement to prove that I was wrong and said, give me a few min and I will look into it.
10 min passed she comes back saying I have spoke with her manager and we will have to get back to me on this.
This was a Wed morning, she said give me a few days to look into it.
5 days passed I got a email saying, I haven't forgotten about you Mr Bilic our legal team are reviewing it.
After viewing that email I decided since there legal team is reviewing it I should send the 10 unanswered questions that they have bothered to skip around with and these questions have nothing to do with free man of the land and proving there legitimacy, they are honest questions about my appeal e:g (why is the description of the offence not verbatim to there Parking and local laws act.
I said there description of the offence 3.2 (2) (a) is all jumbled up to create a description to suit them with also deleted words in the paragraphs, is it led to believe that the rangers when writing up the ticket in there vehicles can write what ever they want.
funny enough they replied
The City of Stirling Parking Infringements is issued from an electronic system the offences and fees are preloaded and are not able to be altered by the issuing officer.
I replied thanks for that but you haven't answered why is it not the same as its written in your parking and local laws.
So to me this proves that somehow that ranger Dan can alter the description on his laptop wile printing it out,
or there electronic system has dyslexia issues.
So as I wrote this new email asking for more clarification, I also referred to a link from my you tube video where they can view the description that the range wrote.
So 5 days have already passed and now another 8 days have passed with no response to my clarification, then I get from there lawyers this defamation concern letter.
So yesterday I decided to send another email stating they have 7 more days to respond to my appeal and questions or the matter will be classed as withdrawn.
Further more
- Confirms that the offence 3.2 Parking and local Laws is invalid to infringe me under this offence.
- Confirms that the City of Stirling is wrong and is unlawful.
- Confirms that you ranger issuing the fine is incompetent.
- Confirms that my terms and fees will be met.
- Confirms that the issue is/will be withdrawal.
If none of the above requirements are complied with by the due date shown, 17/July/ 2019
A final Demand Notice will be issued which will incur additional costs.
Below is my first response to the city of Stirling, and as a company I sent my terms and fees before my appeal
To: City of Stirling ABN: 26 744 398 382
Address: 25 Cedric Street Stirling 6021
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO: Parking Infringement No: 40113435 & 40113436
This is the first I have seen or heard of this Notice.
I hereby give notice WITHOUT PREJUDICE to clear up matters regarding this Notice of Breach which your officer/ranger attached to my automobile.. I do not know of the Corporation on the Notice. I also object to any claim you may deem to have against me.
Further more the offence clause P3.2 (2) (a) under the City of Stirling Parking local Laws 2014, is completely different of arrangement of wording then on the infringement notice on my automobile. This is clearly a deception from the city of Stirling on behalf to write there unlawful laws as they see fit when they see fit to do so. Without the proper wording and the clear deception to change the wording of the description on the infringements, makes these infringements null and void.
No contract exists between us and I reject your offer of contract. Should you continue to illegally pursue this matter to charge a tax/fine/penalty/ or ongoing costs, then you are required to supply to me via Registered Mail within ten working days from the above date, the following information so as to determine whether I take it further to a court of competent jurisdiction.
A sworn affidavit under threat of perjury, and documentation that substantiates your claim
Irrefutable proof that there is a binding contract between the owner of the said automobile and the City of Stirling Parking Enforcement Dept. or any other party that directly or indirectly forms part of your Corporation/Company.
Irrefutable proof that the automobile was parked at the time and place you claim.
Pursuant to Question 3 of the 1988 Referendum, state your valid authority in law to issue such fines/penalties etc.
This is my counter offer – I enclose a copy of my Schedule of Fees and Notice of Communication should you wish to continue with this matter. If I do not receive your response within 10 business days via Registered Mail then it is accepted that you;
a) admit and agree that the requested documentation cannot be produced.
b) agree that Section 109 of “The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act” 1901 prevails.
c) agree that you also are bound by Clause 5 of the same aforementioned Act.
d) agree that you knowingly, wilfully and intentionally failed to provide proof of claim within the specified time herein.
e) the conditions required are not vexatious nor frivolous
f) agree you are prohibited from taking any further action in this matter directly or indirectly in any way or via any other party
g) you further agree that any attempt to do so is a serious breach of Section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914
h) If you, an Officer or authorised representative of the City of Stirling Parking Infringement Dept. a Private Corporation ABN 26 744 398 382 agree with the above terms and conditions and contract offer within the specified time for response, or answer any of the above points incompletely, then simply do nothing and my fee for this letter will be waived.
They have 6 more days to respond, I'm not sure what the outcome will be but if I can prove that the city of Stirling have no claim on the infringement and can prove the ranger is incompetent, I can also prove that I'm the victim here getting harassed and it will sure look better for me in the defamation noticed.
Once again Thanks Rod for your time