Re: [tips_and_tricks] Not In Service
- Scott -You brig up a good point, but one which I expect will bring its own additional problems.For instance, if one places a "Not In Service" sign on a car, one is declaring that this is a vehicle that is intended for commercial purposes that is temporarily not being used for that purpose.I am not sure that the sign would be worth the additional assumptive problems.Yours in freedom,Dave Miner
www.FreedomSite.net----- Original Message -----From: Scott HallSent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 12:23 AMSubject: [tips_and_tricks] Not In ServiceI just had a thought.When a bus or taxi is no longer taking on "passengers" it displays a sign that says, "NOT IN SERVICE"Now, it would seem to me that if a car is registered as a "MOTOR VEHICLE" (commercial designation requiring the operator to have a driver's license) then the state is well within its right to rely on that PRESUMPTION that the person behind the wheel is engaged in commerce.Sure, you can rebut this presumption by stating that you are NOT engaged in commerce when pulled over, but mere words don't seem to carry much weight. Now a sign stating "OUT OF SERVICE" clearly provides notice to all that the vehicle is NOT engaged in commerce.Makes it a little easier to maintain your claim of noncommercial, eh?JMHOScott
Subpoena the radar gun, the maintenance record, The cop's ticket book (see what he has been righting) if all the tickets are for the same speed he hasn't reset his radar gun.
In California if I remember right they have to do a survey or something every year or the speed limit isn't (I haven't been out there for a few years)
Go to court for a day sometime before you are skeduled and see what gets them off.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Dave Miner <dminer@...> wrote:Scott -You brig up a good point, but one which I expect will bring its own additional problems.For instance, if one places a "Not In Service" sign on a car, one is declaring that this is a vehicle that is intended for commercial purposes You do that already when you register it as a "Motor Vehicle" that is temporarily not being used for that purpose.I am not sure that the sign would be worth the additional assumptive problems.Yours in freedom,Dave Miner
Below is a post I sent in last year. Perhaps you will find something useful.
Take care & God bless!
To simply remove the "tags" and/or license plates from your "vehicle" does not magically convert it into your "private" "automobile."
Legal paperwork was filed (and the gov't has a legitimate right to rely on it) when one registered their "vehicles." There are many theories as to what status this vehicle now takes, so I'll just give you the usual version.
1. You have declared that the automobile is a vehicle, and subject to licensing regulations by the gov't.
2. You have declared that this vehicle will be used for commercial purposes or engaged in commerce.
3. Since it is registered as a vehicle, you are required by law to have a license to operate it per gov't regulation.
You will never have a legal leg to stand on by just removing your tags/plates.
Let me ask you this, when the Navy is done with a big ship that it uses for war and wants to sell it to the private sector, what do they do?
They have to fill out a bunch of paperwork to "decommision" the ship from military use to private use. So it is with your "vehicles." You can't simply remove the tags/plates and change the legal status of it. You must file legal documents with the appropriate gov't agency to decommision it from commercial use to private use. Or however you view the status of your vehicle. And since it is near impossible to unilaterally revoke your contract/registration, you should probably just wait for it to expire and then not renew it. However, you cannot just let your registration expire and then fancy your vehicle's status to have changed. Without the decommision paperwork, you are guilty of failing to renew your registration on a vehicle.
I would also include documents of private ownership. I can't remember exactly how it went, but I recall a process where you file a document/affidavit stating that you PAID IN FULL WITH LAWFUL MONEY, and are the sole owner, holding the title free and clear of all claims, to said property. Whether you include a clause stating that no challenges or counterclaims within 30 days closes the window on all questions of total ownership of clear title, or it is a matter of law (common law?) that after 30 days it's a done deal with no recourse to challenge, I don't recall.
I may be all wet, but I would tell peole to try this decommision process in mass before I would advocate a blatant disregard of the law and hope that it worked. I cannot see an upside into telling people to just remove their tags/plates and dare the gov't to do it's worst.
But that's just my humble opinion.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
How about a
"Non-Commercial use" only sign?
You know like some manufacturers note on the product
"not for individual sale".
At 04:36 PM 3/29/04 -0500, you wrote:
You brig up a good point, but one which I expect will bring its own additional problems.
For instance, if one places a "Not In Service" sign on a car, one is declaring that this is a vehicle that is intended for commercial purposes that is temporarily not being used for that purpose.
I am not sure that the sign would be worth the additional assumptive problems.
Yours in freedom,