<!–
<!–
<!– <!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
A woman who used “deceitful and unsustainable pseudo-legal arguments” to try to avoid paying a $183 fine ended up being sentenced to pay almost ten times the amount.
Amy Jane Wells appeared before Judge John Allen KC in the Queensland District Court where her appeal against a speeding fine was dismissed.
Wells had sought to have his fine overturned based on the “12 presumptions of Roman law,” a legal argument that Judge Allen said is “commonly presented in court by unqualified persons, who often identify themselves as supporters of political ideas.” of “sovereign citizens””.
The Queensland driver was fined $183 after her dual-cab vehicle was photographed traveling at 70kmh in a 60kmh zone at Daisy Hill in Logan, west of Brisbane, in March 2022.
Queensland driver Amy Jane Wells has been ordered to pay $1,800 to the Queensland Police Service after attempting to use “sovereign citizen” arguments to get out of a speeding fine.
However, after two years of legal debate, Judge Allen ordered him to pay $1,800 in costs to the Queensland Police Service.
The ordeal began when Wells refused to pay his fine and opted to take his case to Beenleigh Magistrates’ Court in January 2023.
He pleaded not guilty, citing what Judge Allen described as “baffling” false laws and “pseudo-legal claims.”
“At the end of the day, I’m left wondering what it all meant,” he said, mail reports.
The Magistrates Court ultimately found her guilty and ordered her to pay a $107 citation in addition to the original fine.
However, Wells was not satisfied with the result and appealed to the District Court – a mistake of almost $1,000.
In his appeal brief, Wells wrote, “I have been governed without my consent” and argued that “the court, I, and this case” were defrauded.
Judge Allen noted that his appeal was “confusing and legally incoherent” and, again, cited “Roman law.”
Wells was fined $183 after his double-cab vehicle was photographed traveling at 70kmh in a 60kmh zone on Daisy Hill in Logan, west of Brisbane, in March 2022.
“While I do not pretend to fully understand the argument, I am quite convinced that it is legal nonsense and provides no possible basis for allowing an appeal against his conviction,” he wrote.
“The other, more familiar, pseudo-legal arguments are that the appellant has not given her consent to the government or the legislative authority, or that there is no contract to demonstrate consent, so she is not subject to the traffic law, obviously “It lacks any merit and provides no possible grounds for appeal against the conviction.”
Judge Allen dismissed Wells’ appeal and ordered him to pay $1,800 to Queensland Police.
‘Your unfortunate decision to defend the charge in the Magistrates Court based on such misleading ideas and to appeal the learned magistrate’s decision in this court has resulted in a modest traffic fine of $183 that has become a financial burden more than ten times greater. a lot,’ he said.