LOCKED - Since I can not read, perhaps you can help me

[Patriotdiscussions]

No, Einstein, "they" did not "put it in the definition of new car." The distinction between legal title and equitable title isn't even mentioned in the material you quoted. The terms "legal title" and "equitable title" don't even appear in the material. What does appear are the terms "title" and "certificate of title."

You seem to imply that this simple, easy-to-understand statute is somehow beyond your ability to understand -- and impliedly that you are a normal person, and that therefore the statute is vague and indeed "void for vagueness".

You appear to be claiming (1) that a statute that uses the term "title" as short hand for "certificate of title" is therefore somehow so confusing to you that reading it leaves you befuddled, and (2) that you feel the statute is "vague" enough that the statute should be treated as legally void.

That says something about your personality and your abilities.

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning? How do you manage to use modern electronic devices?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're so dumb that you can't understand this stuff, or you're just pretending to be this dumb.

So, the rest of us here reserve the right to deal with you under either scenario: Either you are too stupid to understand what any normal ninth grader should be able to grasp, or you are a troll.

So they did not put it in the definition eh? Please retread it

(9) “New motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; however, when legal title is not transferred but possession of a motor vehicle is transferred pursuant to a conditional sales contract or lease and the conditions are not satisfied and the vehicle is returned to the motor vehicle dealer, the motor vehicle may be resold by the motor vehicle dealer as a new motor vehicle, provided the selling motor vehicle dealer gives the following written notice to the purchaser: “THIS VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED TO A PREVIOUS PURCHASER.” The purchaser shall sign an acknowledgment, a copy of which is kept in the selling dealer’s file.

[Pottapaug1938]

He also parrots the long-discredited foolishness about "the expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of other similar things".

He brings to mind the following famous quote from Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Unless he can start coming up with worthwhile topics, and arguing with more than word salad and misinterpreted or out-of-context quotes, it's time for moderation....

If you bothered to look at the link you would of seen it was the Michigan bar parroting that nonsense.

Of course we realize your understanding of law is much greater then the Michigan bar's.

I did look at the link.

If you bothered to perform legal research on the level of a first-week law student, you would see that this is not a universal rule. Consider a hypothetical law which, among other things, explains that "the definition of 'the United States' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands". Using your rule, the definition of " the United States" would thus not include the 50 states of the Union.

[AndyK]

If by "title", you mean the ownership of the vehicle; the title remains in the possession of the person who purchased the vehicle.

There are additional nuances related to titles encumbered by financing, but they aren't relevant to your intentional confusion.

It is obvious that you are attempting to prove that the State of Florida has 'title' (i.e., ownership) to the vehicle. As has been clearly stated, you couldn't be more wrong.

The only vehicles to which Florida has title (in the ownership sense) are those which the state purchased.

Everything else in the law which you cited relates only to retention of documentation related to the chain of ownership of the vehicle.

You are being intentionally obtuse -- but for what reason?

Irrespective of your self-donned blinkers, the rest of the world understands the meaning and intent of the law.

What's next? Are you going to delve nto the ownership of real estate in the jurisdictions where all documents related to the sale/purchase of property must be submitted to, and retained by, the appropriate governmental entity? Does that then mean that Montgomery County Maryland actually owns all real estate in the County?

[Pottapaug1938]

So they did not put it in the definition eh? Please retread it

(9) “New motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; however, when legal title is not transferred but possession of a motor vehicle is transferred pursuant to a conditional sales contract or lease and the conditions are not satisfied and the vehicle is returned to the motor vehicle dealer, the motor vehicle may be resold by the motor vehicle dealer as a new motor vehicle, provided the selling motor vehicle dealer gives the following written notice to the purchaser: “THIS VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED TO A PREVIOUS PURCHASER.” The purchaser shall sign an acknowledgment, a copy of which is kept in the selling dealer’s file.

This has nothing to do with any state.

When I mortgage my house, in Massachusetts, I transfer legal title to the lender; but I retain an equitable title which becomes legal title once to note is satisfied and the release is given to me by the lender. If I buy a car and use a loan to pay for it, the lender keeps the certificate of title (it has legal title, while I have equitable title) and then releases its lien once I pay off the loan, thus giving me legal title.

At no point, in either scenario, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have either legal or equitable title in my house or my car. Once again, you show that you are unable to understand the law -- but why should I be surprised?

[Patriotdiscussions]

He also parrots the long-discredited foolishness about "the expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of other similar things".

He brings to mind the following famous quote from Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Unless he can start coming up with worthwhile topics, and arguing with more than word salad and misinterpreted or out-of-context quotes, it's time for moderation....

If you bothered to look at the link you would of seen it was the Michigan bar parroting that nonsense.

Of course we realize your understanding of law is much greater then the Michigan bar's.

I did look at the link.

If you bothered to perform legal research on the level of a first-week law student, you would see that this is not a universal rule. Consider a hypothetical law which, among other things, explains that "the definition of 'the United States' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands". Using your rule, the definition of " the United States" would thus not include the 50 states of the Union.

You would be correct, the items listed are federal territories, while includes is a term of expansion, it can only expand to items of the same class... I.e. other federal territories.

Btw it is a general rule about the exclusion thing. Every book on statutory interpretation has it in there. Feel free to google "rules of statutory interpretation" to confirm for yourself.

[arayder]

PD is a regular on SuiJuris, come here evidently believing that he can beard the Quatloosian lion in its den.

One of the themes of the sovcit/detax/freeman subculture is the belief that the powers that be have stolen the law from truth seekers like themselves through the use of complicated legal jargon which the sovcit cult refers to as "legalize".

It is believed that through intense study (almost always conducted over the internet) the method (often called the "code") used to steal the law can be cracked and used against the government, its courts and all the lawyers complicit in the theft of our liberties.

In order to gain the favor of other cult members sovcit pseudo-scholars are fond of pretending that they have cracked the code and found case law and legal terms which they can use to befuddle the clouded minds of the tyrannical.

Consistent with this behavior our visitor shifts through dead case law and legal maxims for something he thinks will gain him credibility with the home team. After a week long stint aimed at dismissing the authority of the federal government, our new friend has come to tell us that he has found a statute so vague as to be void.

The only problem is that the rest of us understand the statute perfectly.

[Patriotdiscussions]

If by "title", you mean the ownership of the vehicle; the title remains in the possession of the person who purchased the vehicle.

There are additional nuances related to titles encumbered by financing, but they aren't relevant to your intentional confusion.

It is obvious that you are attempting to prove that the State of Florida has 'title' (i.e., ownership) to the vehicle. As has been clearly stated, you couldn't be more wrong.

The only vehicles to which Florida has title (in the ownership sense) are those which the state purchased.

Everything else in the law which you cited relates only to retention of documentation related to the chain of ownership of the vehicle.

You are being intentionally obtuse -- but for what reason?

Irrespective of your self-donned blinkers, the rest of the world understands the meaning and intent of the law.

What's next? Are you going to delve nto the ownership of real estate in the jurisdictions where all documents related to the sale/purchase of property must be submitted to, and retained by, the appropriate governmental entity? Does that then mean that Montgomery County Maryland actually owns all real estate in the County?

Are you claiming that a certificate of title IS the title?

Because according to the states own definition it is NOT the title, just a record of evidence.

Where is my paper title?

Not my paper cert of title, but my title?

[Patriotdiscussions]

So they did not put it in the definition eh? Please retread it

(9) “New motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; however, when legal title is not transferred but possession of a motor vehicle is transferred pursuant to a conditional sales contract or lease and the conditions are not satisfied and the vehicle is returned to the motor vehicle dealer, the motor vehicle may be resold by the motor vehicle dealer as a new motor vehicle, provided the selling motor vehicle dealer gives the following written notice to the purchaser: “THIS VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED TO A PREVIOUS PURCHASER.” The purchaser shall sign an acknowledgment, a copy of which is kept in the selling dealer’s file.

This has nothing to do with any state.

When I mortgage my house, in Massachusetts, I transfer legal title to the lender; but I retain an equitable title which becomes legal title once to note is satisfied and the release is given to me by the lender. If I buy a car and use a loan to pay for it, the lender keeps the certificate of title (it has legal title, while I have equitable title) and then releases its lien once I pay off the loan, thus giving me legal title.

At no point, in either scenario, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have either legal or equitable title in my house or my car. Once again, you show that you are unable to understand the law -- but why should I be surprised?

Um this is a florida state statute so I would say that yes it does have to do with a state.

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD is a regular on SuiJuris, come here evidently believing that he can beard the Quatloosian lion in its den.

One of the themes of the sovcit/detax/freeman subculture is the belief that the powers that be have stolen the law from truth seekers like themselves through the use of complicated legal jargon which the sovcit cult refers to as "legalize".

It is believed that through intense study (almost always conducted over the internet) the method (often called the "code") used to steal the law can be cracked and used against the government, its courts and all the lawyers complicit in the theft of our liberties.

In order to gain the favor of other cult members sovcit pseudo-scholars are fond of pretending that they have cracked the code and found case law and legal terms which they can use to befuddle the clouded minds of the tyrannical.

Consistent with this behavior our visitor shifts through dead case law and legal maxims for something he thinks will gain him credibility with the home team. After a week long stint aimed at dismissing the authority of the federal government, our new friend has come to tell us that he has found a statute so vague as to be void.

The only problem is that the rest of us understand the statute perfectly.

[Gratuitous crap deleted by LPC as moderator]

Where is my title? Where is your title?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Btw professor hot air, the practice of using words is called ......terms of art


A term of art is a piece of technical jargon in a given field that has a meaning specific to that field, often one that may not be obvious to outsiders.

[arayder]

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

You might want to consider the idea that you aren't an average citizen.

That wasn't intended as a compliment.

No need to consider that at all, iq tests from the last 20 years proves it.

PD, you would be the only person in my 60 odd years of life I have known who has undergone multiple I.Q. tests to find out how smart he is.

[arayder]

I was waiting for you old Indian chief hot air blown up ass.

Where is my title? Where is your title?

Mine's in my safe. I suspect yours is in a equally dark and lonely place.

[Pottapaug1938]

If you bothered to perform legal research on the level of a first-week law student, you would see that this is not a universal rule. Consider a hypothetical law which, among other things, explains that "the definition of 'the United States' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands". Using your rule, the definition of " the United States" would thus not include the 50 states of the Union.

You would be correct, the items listed are federal territories, while includes is a term of expansion, it can only expand to items of the same class... I.e. other federal territories.

Btw it is a general rule about the exclusion thing. Every book on statutory interpretation has it in there. Feel free to google "rules of statutory interpretation" to confirm for yourself.[/quote]

Wrong. Look up the phrase here on Quatloos; and you will find all of the proof a reasonable person could possibly want to disprove your point. And, BTW, you completely missed my proof at the absurdity of the blanket application of the rule -- or would you truly contend that, in the above example, "the United States" would exclude the 50 states of the Union from the definition?

[Pottapaug1938]

I was waiting for you old Indian chief hot air [deleted].

Where is my title? Where is your title?

My, aren't we getting tetchy? Maybe if you had more substance to your contentions, you'd get more respect here.

[arayder]

Btw professor hot air, the practice of using words is called ......terms of art

A term of art is a piece of technical jargon in a given field that has a meaning specific to that field, often one that may not be obvious to outsiders.

You just went a long towards proving my point about the desperate pseudo-scholarship of the sovcit cult.

You think you have cracked the code of government and the law. . .but you haven't.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I was waiting for you old Indian chief hot air blown up ass.

Where is my title? Where is your title?

Mine's in my safe. I suspect yours is in a equally dark and lonely place.

So you are claiming that your certificate of title is the title and not a record of evidence then correct?

Can you post your states definition, it should be in the motor vehicle title section.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Btw professor hot air, the practice of using words is called ......terms of art

A term of art is a piece of technical jargon in a given field that has a meaning specific to that field, often one that may not be obvious to outsiders.

You just went a long towards proving my point about the desperate pseudo-scholarship of the sovcit cult.

You think you have cracked the code of government and the law. . .but you haven't.

Sorry to break it to you but we put out a ton of lawyers every year who understand the code of statutory interpretation.

It's really not a mystery.

[Pottapaug1938]

This has nothing to do with any state.

When I mortgage my house, in Massachusetts, I transfer legal title to the lender; but I retain an equitable title which becomes legal title once to note is satisfied and the release is given to me by the lender. If I buy a car and use a loan to pay for it, the lender keeps the certificate of title (it has legal title, while I have equitable title) and then releases its lien once I pay off the loan, thus giving me legal title.

At no point, in either scenario, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have either legal or equitable title in my house or my car. Once again, you show that you are unable to understand the law -- but why should I be surprised?

Um this is a florida state statute so I would say that yes it does have to do with a state.[/quote]

Okay, Blackstone, I'll elaborate: it has nothing to do with any state having any sort of title to a privately-owned motor vehicle.

[Pottapaug1938]

Btw professor hot air, the practice of using words is called ......terms of art

A term of art is a piece of technical jargon in a given field that has a meaning specific to that field, often one that may not be obvious to outsiders.

You just went a long towards proving my point about the desperate pseudo-scholarship of the sovcit cult.

You think you have cracked the code of government and the law. . .but you haven't.

Sorry to break it to you but we put out a ton of lawyers every year who understand the code of statutory interpretation.

It's really not a mystery.

We have plenty of lawyers here making regular posts. They all disagree with you.

[arayder]

I was waiting for you old Indian chief hot air blown up ass.

Where is my title? Where is your title?

Mine's in my safe. I suspect yours is in a equally dark and lonely place.

So you are claiming that your certificate of title is the title and not a record of evidence then correct?

Can you post your states definition, it should be in the motor vehicle title section.

I have no intention of playing twenty questions with you, sonny.

It's my car title. It's in my safe. I bought the car from my neighbor who owned it outright and the title was transferred to to me. The state has a record of the transfer, which is a good practice since in some cases the ownership of cars can come into dispute.