Logitech Bluetooth Dongle

Challenge velox

Here's the email that a reader asked me for advice concerning a contravention of which he received:

"Good morning, a few days ago I received a fine of 155 € (plus 14 € of expenses) as exceeded the speed limit of 18 km orari.Tuttavia the sign was not visible even from the pole was detached and thrown to the ground. What can I do? "

As always in these cases, Board to use the expertise of a lawyer, despite this, I'll try to answer. In my opinion, could set the action as follows (there are many sites where you can find the material to make the application):

Al Preg.mo of Justice of the Peace Action ...
art. 23 Law 689/1981. The undersigned

... Born in the ... ... ... Resident


PRECEDE

- that on ... and I 'was notified by registered mail a contravention, as the original (see Annex);
- which is in contravention of this Annex alleged infringement of Article. No 142 / 8 of the Highway Code;
- and that ' Failure to stop and the immediate challenge by the officer in charge, pursuant to art. 201, paragraph 1a points e) of Legislative Decree no. 285/92;
- that given the premises the equipment work probably outside the control of agents in, for I proceeded with my vehicle, in the historic center and if the staff member had been to guard the device would have ordered the immediate detention and challenge the violation art. No 142 / 8 of the Highway Code, which did not happen;
-that under the provisions of sect ruling with the Court of Cassation (n.1380 of 08.02.2000), sect. III Civil Court itself (n. 4010 of 03.04.2000), and also of the sez.civile (N.2494 of 21/02/2001) in case of infringement by major camera mod. 104 / C, allowing the immediate relief of the offending vehicle, must still proceed with the immediate pain of contestability 'of legitimacy' of the breach and resulting high annulment 'of the same;
- that the equipment was not reported in the appropriate mode provided for in art. 3 of Decree 117/2007, since the sign was located on land adjacent to the pole (see attached photo) and not on the above, this entails the disappearance of representability to know the legislative data, and also the guilt with the result falls because no one could have in that position identify the sign, that fact is also, 'in contrast with the same art. 3 of Decree 117/2007 in that it establishes "The checkpoints on the road network to detect the speed shall be reported in advance and clearly visible, resorting to the use of billboards and light signaling devices, in accordance with standards in the Implementing Regulations of this Code. Conditions of employment are established by decree of the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Minister of the Interior ", a fact which has not been able to achieve for the reasons listed above;
- claimed to also ', the actual regularity calibration equipment;
- that part of the report on the returns of the offender was blocked, confirming the
not dispute - it argues, moreover, no allegation of the picture, showing the offense, to me, made

REQUESTS

the suspension and cancellation of the said report and those subsequent measures it deems appropriate issue. Date and signature



PS: everyone is free to use this document at your own risk and peril, we can not guarantee that the application can be accepted by the magistrate is