[leonard]

After going through some of Module 28, it seems the best option so far is this “private administrative process” doing a:
1. Notice of Conditional Acceptance.

2. Default Notice

3. Final Notice & Notice of Default judgement process.

I already went through this whole process with QRO
The issuing authority in this case is:
Department of Transport and Main Roads
Prosecution Services
I haven’t finished the module so am unsure if I am sending the same or similar notices as I already issued or drafting new ones for this stage?
Time consuming stuff.

[leonard]

Hi all, well more than 3 months later I just today received a summons to appear in May.

Firstly they have only brought 2 (out of 3) of the charges.
Why they have dropped the 3rd is unknown and quite bizarre tbh.

The layout is as follows:
Enclosed:
1. Complaint
2. Summons
3. Court brief.
At this point I would plan to appear and follow the “under duress and threat of menace” protocol answering to the name called “out of necessity” and tabling my Source document and 2 signed affidavits from the original notice of conditional acceptance process. For sure I would submit all the records of documents sent and received as well as screenshots of deliveries of all the documentation from Module 36 etc.

Included in their documentation is “Notice of intention to allege traffic record”.

They go on to list my “traffic record” back to 2014.

In the notice accompanying summons are copies of Section 114,116, 118 an 120 of the transport operations act

Then there is a “Complaint and Summons Plea Form” but I won’t be using that one.
I am planning to not enter a plea at all.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated as I am new to this (thankfully).

[leonard]

This is their final response so to say lol.

it appears their not really getting it,

And the Source document is being ignored.

So it has been a process of kicking the can down the road.

If its referred to Sper what will happen to the demerit points?

[leonard]

Hi all,

After sending in the 3rd (4th) round of correspondence from the module, I received the attached page back in the mail on Friday.

It says they will not withdraw the notices. Saying they are “not subject to the terms outlined”.

Giving me a couple of weeks to either pay fines or elect court.

It states, “I confirm no debt recovery or enforcement action has commenced…..However, if the matters remain outstanding beyond the due date, the unpaid fines will be referred to SPER for collection.”

I already sent copies of the entire round of module letters to SPER, when I sent them to QRO, fines admin and management division (who replied with the attached letter)

Can anyone advise me further here. I’d rather keep the “matter” away from Court, but then again am prepared to go through and represent myself there if necessary. I will download the Court module now. But can one theoretically start another round of correspondence with QRO to drag the “matter” out further and get them locked into cycles of never ending paperwork?

Any advice is appreciated, with regards.

20241028_063448.jpg 212 KB Image File - Click to view

Options

• Copy Download Link

[leonard]

I just received my Source Document in the mail which is a gamechanger. It wasn’t included as an exhibit in the first affidavit as at that stage I hadn’t acquired it.
Now that I have I’m wondering whether to resend the affidavit (with updated exhibit) with my 3rd Notice to Sper/Qro or save it for later & potential court?

[leonard]

Amazing… your reply is much appreciated.

[leonard]

Yesterday I received the attached letter in reply to my second notice letters.

As you can see, they suggested “”the “infringements” are not yet registered with Sper…””

“”In the meantime the info is passed onto
fine administration & management division, QRO
PO Box 1440, Bris, Qld, 4001
Phone number provided””

Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated.

There are a few options…:

1: Continue the 4 letters process of Non Consent from Module 36 with Sper.

2. Start this process again with this fine admin management division of QRO. But I fail to see how the original letters aren’t relevant to them in any case.

My notices (x2 so far) were originally addressed to: (Abbreviated)

The Manager
Accounts Department

SPER

Simon McKee

Commissioner of QRO

Registrar of SPER

SPER
QRO

PO Box 1387
Bris, Qld 4001

Also at the top of both my notices sent so far is

“Within the universal maxim of law ‘notice to agent is notice to principal and notice to principal is notice to agent’. All addressed parties Jointly and Severally as well as their Successors, Nominees and assigns.”

20240829_110010-scaled.jpg 128 KB Image File - Click to view

Options

• Copy Download Link

[leonard]

Thanks Morag.

If I let it go to Sper as they will slap the 12 demerit points at that point.

This leaves me no alternative but to elect the court option and go down that road.

I have a couple of weeks up my sleeve to do my homework on that avenue.

I have looked into some of Mark’s other modules including paying by promissory note (but that would potentially activate demerits!?)

A friend had a somewhat similar case heard in court where the court waived the demerit points, he said he couldn’t pay the fine so they gave him comm service instead.

It is what it is, a godforsaken mafia.

I may stand a chance with a decent magistrate.

[leonard]

Very clear indeed, thanks… will keep the forum posted

[leonard]

Thanks for the tips, much appreciated.
I am following the 3 step process from Module 36 and sent their “notices” back with suggested scripts in red ink today; accompanied by the notice of non consent and conditional acceptance (with points added regarding cameras accuracy/privacy etc). Got the affidavit/declaration signed off by a notary and all sent off today. Had to explain that I’d been away for a while.
Sper & Qro actually have the same mailing address. Thanks @laura-clair re the threads on current Commissioner of Qro and Registrar of Sper, Simon Mckee.
Interesting catching up on the story last year about Queensland’s seatbelt detection cameras wrongly issuing fines and infringement penalties to almost 1850 motorists across a 22-month period – with the state’s transport minister putting the blame for the embarrassing fault on a human-created software error.
I will need to work ongoing on gaining my source document and changing my signs to the ARR version across the board to solidify standing ongoing.
In the meanwhile I will go ahead and download Modules 27 re Claim of Right and 80 re 10 Steps to Sovereignty.