Sylvia Else: I am now Right and You are now wrong.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 11 Jun 2010 03:49 On 11/06/2010 5:32 PM, bringyagrogalong wrote: > Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> bringyagrogalong wrote: >>> B J Foster<bjfos...(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >>>> bringyagrogalong wrote: >>>>> B J Foster<plagiarist...(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> bringyagrogalong wrote: >>>>>>> Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Noodle wrote: >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>> But quite apart from the stupidity of his argument he is also urging >>>>>>> people to break the law. >> >>>>>> Since when was refusing to pay a fine against the law, idiot >> >>>>> Taken to its ultimate conclusion refusing to pay a fine results in >>>>> contempt of court and a prison term. >> >>>> Idiot, you cannot *be* in contempt of court if you haven't *been* in a court >> >>> I see that you're as dull-wiited as that clown epsilon. >> >>> What part of: Taken to its *ultimate conclusion* refusing to pay a >>> fine results in contempt of court and a prison term. >> >> I suppose you intended to put "don't you understand" at the end. > > Give the girl a cigar! > >> Anyway, it seems clear enough. > > Of course it does, unless you're retarded like Hunter. > >> But it's also incorrect. The defaulter can in some circumstances end up >> in prison, but not for contempt. >> >> Sylvia. > > (extremely heavy sigh!) > > The penultimate step of dealing with a fine defaulter is a court order > for that person to serve community service, as per this link: > http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R79CHP3 That's not what the link says, and reports from the Law Reform Comission are not the best place to find out about the current law anyway. The Fines Act is the place to look in this case. See below. > > If that person refuses to obey that lawful order of the court he is in > contempt of court. In a situation where person defaults on paying a fine, it's the SDRR that issues a community service order. Since a court is not involved, there cannot possibly be a contempt of court. > > He can then be sent to prison for contempt of court and the original > non-payment of a fine is no longer relevant. If a person really were sent to prison for contempt of court in respect of a failure to obey a community service order, it's most likely that the order would stand, as would the unpaid fine. > > On what charge do you think a fine defaulter is sent to prison for, if > not for contempt of court? They're not sent to prison on any charge, but by warrant. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa199669/s87.html Sylvia.
From: B J Foster on 11 Jun 2010 05:48 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/06/2010 5:32 PM, bringyagrogalong wrote: .... >> >> If that person refuses to obey that lawful order of the court he is in >> contempt of court. > > Since a court is not involved, > there cannot possibly be a contempt of court. > That's what I told the idiot at least 6 posts ago! >>
From: bringyagrogalong on 11 Jun 2010 06:17 Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > bringyagrogalong wrote: > > Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> bringyagrogalong wrote: > >>> B J Foster<bjfos...(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>> bringyagrogalong wrote: > >>>>> B J Foster<plagiarist...(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> bringyagrogalong wrote: > >>>>>>> Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Noodle wrote: > >>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> But quite apart from the stupidity of his argument he is also urging > >>>>>>> people to break the law. > > >>>>>> Since when was refusing to pay a fine against the law, idiot > > >>>>> Taken to its ultimate conclusion refusing to pay a fine results in > >>>>> contempt of court and a prison term. > > >>>> Idiot, you cannot *be* in contempt of court if you haven't *been* in a court > > >>> I see that you're as dull-wiited as that clown epsilon. > > >>> What part of: Taken to its *ultimate conclusion* refusing to pay a > >>> fine results in contempt of court and a prison term. > > >> I suppose you intended to put "don't you understand" at the end. > > > Give the girl a cigar! > > >> Anyway, it seems clear enough. > > > Of course it does, unless you're retarded like Hunter. > > >> But it's also incorrect. The defaulter can in some circumstances end up > >> in prison, but not for contempt. > > >> Sylvia. > > > (extremely heavy sigh!) > > > The penultimate step of dealing with a fine defaulter is a court order > > for that person to serve community service, as per this link: > > http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R79CHP3 > > That's not what the link says, and reports from the Law Reform Comission > are not the best place to find out about the current law anyway. The > Fines Act is the place to look in this case. See below. > > > If that person refuses to obey that lawful order of the court he is in > > contempt of court. > > In a situation where person defaults on paying a fine, it's the SDRR > that issues a community service order. Since a court is not involved, > there cannot possibly be a contempt of court. > > > He can then be sent to prison for contempt of court and the original > > non-payment of a fine is no longer relevant. > > If a person really were sent to prison for contempt of court in respect > of a failure to obey a community service order, it's most likely that > the order would stand, as would the unpaid fine. > > > On what charge do you think a fine defaulter is sent to prison for, if > > not for contempt of court? > > They're not sent to prison on any charge, but by warrant. > > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa199669/s87.html > > Sylvia. So you finally agree that a fine-defaulter can be sent to prison. How do you square that with your earlier statement, "Any action taken in respect of an unpaid fine will be civil, not criminal"?
From: Sylvia Else on 11 Jun 2010 07:49 On 11/06/2010 7:48 PM, B J Foster wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 11/06/2010 5:32 PM, bringyagrogalong wrote: > ... >>> >>> If that person refuses to obey that lawful order of the court he is in >>> contempt of court. >> >> Since a court is not involved, there cannot possibly be a contempt of >> court. >> > > That's what I told the idiot at least 6 posts ago! > Yes, I remember. It seemed necessary to restate it. Sylvia.
From: bringyagrogalong on 11 Jun 2010 08:07
Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > B J Foster wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> bringyagrogalong wrote: > > ... > > >>> If that person refuses to obey that lawful order of the court he is in > >>> contempt of court. > > >> Since a court is not involved, there cannot possibly be a contempt of > >> court. > > > That's what I told the idiot at least 6 posts ago! > > Yes, I remember. It seemed necessary to restate it. > > Sylvia. Oh dear! Sylvia studiously ignored my post outlining her ignorance and quickly passed it over to reply to Usenet's resident idiot, Foster. Well, that's it! Game, Set, and Match to me. Sometimes it's the small victories which are the most satisfying. :-] |