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

[LPC]

This thread started out inane, and has been going downhill since then.

The first post was a troll, and the troll is winning.

I don't like to shut down threads less than 2 days old, but I've already edited a posting that was unnecessarily offensive, and will lock this thread if there's no redeemable social value tomorrow.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Your state must not have title requirements for ATVs, or else they use MSOs as certificates of titles. That would never work in Massachusetts. I buy all my cars secondhand; and while I don't recall ever seeing a MSO, I have seen ceitificates of title on all of them.

No title needed in other states as well


DMV does not issue any permits or other type of registration for all-terrain vehicles, or other vehicles not manufactured for use on public roads except snowmobiles.

For permits and riding information, see Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

Even though you do not get your ATV operating permits from DMV, you may still get a title for your ATV from DMV, although Oregon law does not require the title.

To get a title only for your ATV:

http://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/vehicle/atv.aspx

[Patriotdiscussions]

Your state must not have title requirements for ATVs, or else they use MSOs as certificates of titles. That would never work in Massachusetts. I buy all my cars secondhand; and while I don't recall ever seeing a MSO, I have seen ceitificates of title on all of them.

Unless your using it on land that is not your own, it seems that even your state does not require you to get a title.

http://www.nestreetriders.com/forum/316 ... stion.html




None of the ne states require you to do it. New Hampshire says you can't even if you request it.


https://secure.rmv.state.ma.us/PolicyBr ... idents.htm

[arayder]

Well that's all very interesting, PD. But you have again managed to avoid your unspoken argument. How very disingenuous. In your last thread you took several posts before you got around to stating your conclusion; that the federal government has no authority outside the District of Columbia.

In this thread your laughable argument is that the states magically gain title to one's car through some unexplained voodoo occurring during the the process of establishing title. One has to wonder if you are not embarrassed at seeing that we have to state your argument for you.

I point out that your long ago disproven conclusion is held as truth in the sovcit subculture and despite your claimed superior intelligence you have borrowed your argument lock stock and barrel from sovcit "sources".

I suspect your next loony, unoriginal idea will also be lifted whole hog from some sovcit website or forum. In the future I'll just cut to the chase early in the thread and tell everybody where you got your idea and exactly what it is.

Oh, if you want to advance your current argument you can tell us exactly how in law or practice the states go about stealing the title to our cars even as we get those same titles.

Substance please, PD!

[chronistra]

The 'void for vagueness' doctrine can be applied to pretty much any law, when it is couched "in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926))

I beg to differ. In current law, the "void for vagueness" doctrine applies almost exclusively to criminal statutes. See, for example, the discussion in this case:http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis ... 5/1881905/

While I agree that criminal statutes are the more common venue, I stand by my assertion that the doctrine can be applied to a much broader range. There's a fair amount of relatively recent jurisprudence on First Amendment issues, e.g., that invokes the void for vagueness doctrine (e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 US ___ (2012)), while the courts of my home state (Kansas) have reviewed the doctrine in matters ranging from attorney discipline to the application of tax exemptions for merchant's inventory (Kansas Enterprises, Inc. v. Frantz, 6 P. 3d 857 (2000)). Any law that prescribes or proscribes actions is open to attack if those of common intelligence must guess at what actions are required or forbidden.

[grixit]

Perhaps it is the inside of PD's head that is void for vagueness.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Well that's all very interesting, PD. But you have again managed to avoid your unspoken argument. How very disingenuous. In your last thread you took several posts before you got around to stating your conclusion; that the federal government has no authority outside the District of Columbia.

In this thread your laughable argument is that the states magically gain title to one's car through some unexplained voodoo occurring during the the process of establishing title. One has to wonder if you are not embarrassed at seeing that we have to state your argument for you.

I point out that your long ago disproven conclusion is held as truth in the sovcit subculture and despite your claimed superior intelligence you have borrowed your argument lock stock and barrel from sovcit "sources".

I suspect your next loony, unoriginal idea will also be lifted whole hog from some sovcit website or forum. In the future I'll just cut to the chase early in the thread and tell everybody where you got your idea and exactly what it is.

Oh, if you want to advance your current argument you can tell us exactly how in law or practice the states go about stealing the title to our cars even as we get those same titles.

Substance please, PD!

There are many ways, none that can convince a man with preconceived notions though.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The 'void for vagueness' doctrine can be applied to pretty much any law, when it is couched "in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926))

I beg to differ. In current law, the "void for vagueness" doctrine applies almost exclusively to criminal statutes. See, for example, the discussion in this case:http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis ... 5/1881905/

Is this what you were talking about?


Although plaintiff is correct that the vagueness doctrine has been extended to include civil statute. Hoffman Estates, supra, 455 U.S. at 497, 102 S.Ct. at 1193, the Court has repeatedly remarked that the standard for a statute imposing civil penalties is less severe than for criminal penalty statutes. Id. at 499, 102 S.Ct. at 1193-94.

[wserra]

I think the problem was that the experts had to run the IQ test several times on PD before they were able to detect that he had an IQ.

Right. The results of the first few were void for vagueness.

[arayder]

Well that's all very interesting, PD. But you have again managed to avoid your unspoken argument. How very disingenuous. In your last thread you took several posts before you got around to stating your conclusion; that the federal government has no authority outside the District of Columbia.

In this thread your laughable argument is that the states magically gain title to one's car through some unexplained voodoo occurring during the the process of establishing title. One has to wonder if you are not embarrassed at seeing that we have to state your argument for you.

I point out that your long ago disproven conclusion is held as truth in the sovcit subculture and despite your claimed superior intelligence you have borrowed your argument lock stock and barrel from sovcit "sources".

I suspect your next loony, unoriginal idea will also be lifted whole hog from some sovcit website or forum. In the future I'll just cut to the chase early in the thread and tell everybody where you got your idea and exactly what it is.

Oh, if you want to advance your current argument you can tell us exactly how in law or practice the states go about stealing the title to our cars even as we get those same titles.

Substance please, PD!

There are many ways, none that can convince a man with preconceived notions though.

Let the record show you can't complete your own argument.

I asked because every sovcit forum or website which makes the claim fails, as do you, to cite in law the authorization to keep the titles. Neither can they, or you, explain how the titles are taken or where they are stored. They, and you, can't find a court case or documented incident of a state exercising its rights as the owner of a single of the the millions of cars they and you say the states own.

To paraphrase Doc Holiday: http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id ... forgot.mp3

[Pottapaug1938]

Oh, if you want to advance your current argument you can tell us exactly how in law or practice the states go about stealing the title to our cars even as we get those same titles.

Substance please, PD!

There are many ways, none that can convince a man with preconceived notions though.

Name one. No evasions, misdirections, no goal-post moving, no questions of your own. Name one.

[Patriotdiscussions]

the authorization to keep the titles. Neither can they, or you, explain how the titles are taken or where they are stored.

As a us citizen in order to drive on the streets you need a tag,etc.

The only way to get one is to turn in your title(mso), they then give you a certificate of title(much like a certificate of deposit is not the deposit), they microfilm the original and then destroy it.

They, and you, can't find a court case or documented incident of a state exercising its rights as the owner of a single of the the millions of cars they and you say the states own.

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item.

You know what I'm talking about?

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

What do you think happens if a tail light is busted on my private atv?

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?

Out of 50 titles, none of them are named private property.

[Patriotdiscussions]

What is the difference between legal title and equitable title?

Legal title refers to the duties and responsibilities of maintaining and controlling some property, while equitable title refers to the benefits and enjoyment of that property. The essence of a trust is splitting the legal title and equitable title in some piece of property such that one or more people (the trustees) have the legal title and control the property while others (the beneficiaries) own the equitable title and get the use and enjoyment of the property.

[arayder]

the authorization to keep the titles. Neither can they, or you, explain how the titles are taken or where they are stored.

As a us citizen in order to drive on the streets you need a tag,etc.

The only way to get one is to turn in your title(mso), they then give you a certificate of title(much like a certificate of deposit is not the deposit), they microfilm the original and then destroy it.

They, and you, can't find a court case or documented incident of a state exercising its rights as the owner of a single of the the millions of cars they and you say the states own.

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item.

You know what I'm talking about?

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

What do you think happens if a tail light is busted on my private atv?

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?

Out of 50 titles, none of them are named private property.

Watching you try to invent some sort of response that makes sense of the sovcit conspiracy theory you have bought into is entertaining, PD. It's like watching a worm squirm on a hook.

The states get their authority to require that cars be in working order through their state constitutions and the various motor vehicle statutes, not because they steal car titles and then destroy them.

When one gets hauled into court for having an unsafe rattle trap on the road the courts cite the state motor vehicle statute that was broken. I have yet to hear of a court saying the guy before them on the busted tail light charge is there because he improperly maintained a car the state really owns.

Frankly, your post is laughable, PD.

[Pottapaug1938]

They, and you, can't find a court case or documented incident of a state exercising its rights as the owner of a single of the the millions of cars they and you say the states own.

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item.

You know what I'm talking about?

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

What do you think happens if a tail light is busted on my private atv?

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?

Out of 50 titles, none of them are named private property.

Stop moving the goalposts and posing irrelevant questions, Sparky. NAME ONE COURT CASE IN WHICH THE HOLDING SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTIONS.

[Pottapaug1938]

What is the difference between legal title and equitable title?

Legal title refers to the duties and responsibilities of maintaining and controlling some property, while equitable title refers to the benefits and enjoyment of that property. The essence of a trust is splitting the legal title and equitable title in some piece of property such that one or more people (the trustees) have the legal title and control the property while others (the beneficiaries) own the equitable title and get the use and enjoyment of the property.

More goal-post moving and irrelevant and misleading concepts. It's long past time for PD to go on Moderated status.

[chronistra]

the authorization to keep the titles. Neither can they, or you, explain how the titles are taken or where they are stored.

As a us citizen in order to drive on the streets you need a tag,etc.

The only way to get one is to turn in your title(mso), they then give you a certificate of title(much like a certificate of deposit is not the deposit), they microfilm the original and then destroy it.

So if the state uses electronic titles, how does that affect your theory?

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item.

You know what I'm talking about?

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

What happens if your tail light is busted on a car titled out of state, or even out of country? Does a car titled in the Estado de Mexico have the right to drive around the State of Missouri with a busted tail light? How about one titled on the Prairie Band Potawatomi reservation?

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?

Since when?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," to name a trivial example, is a power requiring the ability to regulate private property rights in the goods being traded and the conveyances (ships, etc.) being used.

Out of 50 titles, none of them are named private property.

I dunno about YOUR vehicle, but my vehicle's certificate of title calls me the "owner"--that means I hold it as property. (Look in the dictionary for the definition of owner.)

[wserra]

More goal-post moving and irrelevant and misleading concepts. It's long past time for PD to go on Moderated status.

In just this thread, Patriotdiscussions has bounced from the subject of his original post (and evidence of his not knowing the difference between title and record of title) to void for vagueness to espressio unius to his alleged IQ to the definition of a motor vehicle to federal territories to some gibberish about legal and equitable title to excusing all the gibberish as "terms of art".

Enough. In the past we've just locked threads. At long last, I find myself agreeing with Pottapaug: whether it's because he's a troll or just an ignoramus, Patriotdiscussions has his entire time here acted like nothing so much as a kangaroo on meth. If that doesn't stop, he will be moderated. To avoid that fate, PD should stop changing the subject and actually state a proposition. He should not ask questions whose purpose is to troll. He should answer questions after a certain amount of thought, and not just by stringing random words together. If he does not do these things, only those of his posts approved by a moderator will see the light of day. If he is unable or unwilling to do these things, he should go elsewhere.

[arayder]

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item. . .

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

What do you think happens if a tail light is busted on my private atv?

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?. . .

I hate to burst your bubble, PD, but in my state pre-2010 atvs are not required to have be titled, yet the state laws that require all riders to wear helmets, restrict all atv use by children and prohibit all atv use on highways apply to all atvs, even the pre-2010 ones!

Under your theory that's not possible!

[ontobserver]

the authorization to keep the titles. Neither can they, or you, explain how the titles are taken or where they are stored.

As a us citizen in order to drive on the streets you need a tag,etc.

The only way to get one is to turn in your title(mso), they then give you a certificate of title(much like a certificate of deposit is not the deposit), they microfilm the original and then destroy it.

When you purchase a vehicle that you wish to operate on public streets, you need to obtain tags (or plates as we call them here in Ontario). In order to issue plates, the government requires you to prove that you have title to the vehicle. The only accepted form of proof of title is a "Certificate of Title", which (and try not to get lost on this) Certifies that you have title to the vehicle. If the vehicle was stolen, had a lien against it by a bank, etc., you would not be able to get a "certificate of title" as the person who sold the vehicle to you didn't own it in the case of theft, or had used the vehicle as collateral for a loan. At no point does the state have either equitable or legal title to the vehicle.

They, and you, can't find a court case or documented incident of a state exercising its rights as the owner of a single of the the millions of cars they and you say the states own.

They exercise there rights thru statutes. Legal title gives them the right to make the rules for the item.

No, the fact that you want to operate them on the public roads gives them the right to make the rules for the vehicle. If you want to drive the vehicle on your private property, you don't need tags, safety inspections, etc., and theoretically, you wouldn't need to obtain a new "Certificate of Title", however, as soon as you decide to dispose of the vehicle, the new owner (including automotive recyclers), will probably require that you have a proper "Certificate of Title" before they will purchase the vehicle.

You know what I'm talking about?

No, you're spewing complete nonsense.

What happens if your tail light is busted on a state titled car?

If you mean a car owned by the state (i.e. the state has title for the car), then the state must get the tail light fixed or be subject to fines.

What do you think happens if a tail light is busted on my private atv?

If you are driving on your private property, you don't have to fix the tail light on your atv, car, truck, etc., but in order to drive it on public streets, you will need to have the tail light fixed or risk being fined.

You do also realize that the government can not regulate private property right?

Already covered this in another one of your idiotic threads...the government definitely can regulate private property. Go into your local Radio Shack and buy a bunch of components to build a radio transmitter...as soon as you power on that transmitter, you are subject a lot of rules and regulations.

Out of 50 titles, none of them are named private property.

If you keep looking, you might find a book named "private property"...oh wait, title has yet another meaning!!!! How is the common person going to figure out if we're talking about a book title, a "certificate of title", title as in ownership, title as in status? Well, PD, we use the context around the word to understand, and most people (even those with a less than average IQ), can figure it out.

The Traffic Code is the way it is because, in general, the public wants it that way. I don't want you driving down the highway in your rusted out pickup truck with bald tires and no brakes, doing 15 below the speed limit in the left lane because it is a hazard to other people on the road. I want you to have insurance because when you do run into someone, you won't pay for the damage done to their vehicle, or for their medical expenses.