You Have To KNOW That You Don't Own The Car

[palani]

This woman is fighting these charges? She should be sending them to the State of Illinois. They are the owner of record.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fighting-100-000-parking-fine-161542539.html

Chicago woman fighting $100,000 parking fine


CHICAGO (AP) — A Chicago woman is trying to get out of paying a parking fine that has snowballed to more than $100,000.

WBBM Radio reports that (http://cbsloc.al/10PoNXv ) Jennifer Fitzgerald filed a lawsuit last year against the city over the $105,000 worth of tickets that police piled up on her car.

The car was left for nearly three years in a parking lot at O'Hare International Airport.

WBBM says a judge dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday and pressed the parties to try harder to reach a settlement.

Fitzgerald says she should not be held responsible for the fine because her ex-boyfriend abandoned the car in an employee parking lot at the airport. She says the car is only worth about $600.

The suit also names her former boyfriend.

[Ponce]

My X had to go to NY for three weeks and the parking (at that time) was ten dollars a day at the airport, the day before she came back I went with my motorcycle and a gallon of water, got my parking ticket....wash most of the dirt of her car, took the old ticket and put the new parking ticket in its place went out by way of the peoples way and went home.........a $210.00 ticket became only $10.00 .

V

[7th trump]

This woman is fighting these charges? She should be sending them to the State of Illinois. They are the owner of record.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fighting-100-000-parking-fine-161542539.html

Chicago woman fighting $100,000 parking fine
What....did you wake up drunk again Palani?

The state didn't abandon the car in a private parking lot now did it.
Your unreasonable retarded thinking has won you, Palani, the retard award!


And under your own very admission palani you say the state owns the car and the licensee only has an interest in the vehicle....ie the use the vehicle.
You cant have it both ways palani, but I speculating you're a spoiled little brat wanting it both ways after completely confusing yourself to a point you are completely blind with and by the law.

[palani]

The state didn't abandon the car in a private parking lot now did it.

You really DON'T have a clue do you?

[Ares]

You really DON'T have a clue do you?

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/eating/popcorn.gif

Got the popcorn, ready to sit and see how this plays out. :)

[Cebu_4_2]

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/eating/popcorn.gif

Got the popcorn, ready to sit and see how this plays out. :)

Usually fizzles out.

[palani]

....a $210.00 ticket became only $10.00 .

V

Good solution. In the past I have spent a night in an airport hotel so that the car might be parked for no charge for up to about 10 days.

[7th trump]

You really DON'T have a clue do you?
Typical palani deflective ploy!

Don't try and ignore the fact the government was not the party who abandoned the vehicle on private property.

[Glass]

Typical palani deflective ploy!

Don't try and ignore the fact the government was not the party who abandoned the vehicle on private property.

So if the vehicle was on private property, why did the police write tickets for it?

Chances are none of the tickets have any authority.... if it was private property.

[Cebu_4_2]

So if the vehicle was on private property, why did the police write tickets for it?

Chances are none of the tickets have any authority.... if it was private property.

Private property is not technically private if it is accessible by the public and/or police.

In back behind a shop I used to frequent the police would always try to bust people drinking. When asked why they can access a private parking lot he said that it is publicly accessible. Said that there are 2 gates, and if we didn't want to be bothered than the gates should be closed and locked.

[milehi]

Good solution. In the past I have spent a night in an airport hotel so that the car might be parked for no charge for up to about 10 days.

No need to spend a night in their hotel. You can park for free if you use their airport shuttle to get a ride to the airport. When you get back to town, a ride to your car is a phone call away. All for the price of a tip each way. Taught to me by a flight attendant girlfriend.

[Ponce]

When I had my own company with my own product (squeeze hand balls) another guy not only the balls but also 95% of the display box......I just to go behind his building to take all the info that I could from his dumpster.......I learned who's all his clients were and by given them a lower price I stole around 60% of them........anyway, when I took him to court and I told them what I was doing his lawyer jumped up about me going into privater dumster in private property but the Judge said that the dumster was open all the time in a private property accesible to the general public.........after that the guy put a padlock on the dumster.........upssssssss to late, all the horses are gone.

By the way, the judge ruled in my favor and awarded me $30,000......to me that was pennies for what I was making at the time.

V

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you have a 'certificate of title' doesn't the state possess the manufacturer's certificate of origin, and aren't they the owners of the car, although you have a financial interest in that car since you paid for it? So, if you abandon the car, doesn't the state assume ownership and control of the vehicle? So, why didn't the cops treat it as an abandoned vehicle, rather than one that has a private individual with a financial interest in it? Surely over a period of three years if nobody claims the vehicle, the license and registration must have expired. And of course, if the car is worth only $600, wouldn't it be apparent that the police are treating it as a source of revenue from their issuance of tickets, rather than acting responsibly and having it removed and junked as abandoned property? Where does one draw the line between negligent abandonment of a vehicle and predatory pursuit of revenue by police? Doesn't the state have some prescribed procedures for the disposition of abandoned property? If I were a judge in this case, I would urge the police to drop the traffic tickets beyond 30 days because they failed to initiate procedures for disposal of abandoned motor vehicles. If they wouldn't agree to that, I would dismiss the case, and they would get zero revenue.


Hatha

[midnight rambler]

you have a financial interest in that car since you paid for it?

*Paid* for it?? ??? With what exactly? Evidence of debt?

Most people are totally clueless as to how the state can 'impound' their car without a warrant or court order*.

*hint: the state is the 'legal owner' and as 'legal owner' the state doesn't need any stinking warrant or court order

[palani]

...the fact the government was not the party who abandoned the vehicle on private property.

Who owns the license plate? Was the ticket made out to the car or to the license plate? When you sell a car who does the license plate go back to? Or do you keep it?

As I previously stated ... you are clueless.

[palani]

If you have a 'certificate of title' doesn't the state possess the manufacturer's certificate of origin, and aren't they the owners of the car, although you have a financial interest in that car since you paid for it? Hatha

That is the common theory. However, anytime the car is referred to in official documents it is not the car that is being reference but the license plate. There is no doubt that the plate is owned by the state. Because it is attached to the car the presumption is that it is the car that is being discussed. Perhaps it is as if the state assigned a 'name' to the car thru the license plate and every time the name (the plate number) is cited it is the plate only and not the car being discussed. The name is the account.

[Spectrism]

You silly people. The state only claims rights to control and tax the property. They claim the assets, not the liabilities. The liabilities are the cost of the individual who wants to use the vehicle.

[7th trump]

Who owns the license plate? Was the ticket made out to the car or to the license plate? When you sell a car who does the license plate go back to? Or do you keep it?

As I previously stated ... you are clueless.
You want to talk about clueless huh?

Who applies for the license plate....the state or the individual with the interest in the vehicle?

The vehicle is registered in the name of the individual and address of the individual now isn't it palani!


Your theory doesn't hold water just like any of your posts.

[palani]

Your theory doesn't hold water just like any of your posts.

Your comment is completely off topic. If you are looking for vessels to hold water I expect you are not looking in the right place.

[palani]

The liabilities are the cost of the individual who wants to use the vehicle.

I know of a guy who was involved in a single car accident and ended up in the ditch. The county sent him a bill for a couple grand for emergency services. He ignored a couple bills and finally it was served by a deputy. He waited a couple days before walking into the county attorneys office, laid the bill on his desk and told him 'It's your car so you pay the bill' and hasn't heard from them since.

[7th trump]

I know of a guy who was involved in a single car accident and ended up in the ditch. The county sent him a bill for a couple grand for emergency services. He ignored a couple bills and finally it was served by a deputy. He waited a couple days before walking into the county attorneys office, laid the bill on his desk and told him 'It's your car so you pay the bill' and hasn't heard from them since.
And thats all the proof you need to convince yourself your theories hold water huh.
Its never accrued to you that maybe the dept head just threw the emergency bill in the round file and the public picks up the bill?
Reason never comes into play with you does it palani. You're a typical conspiracy minded person who thinks everyone is out to get you.

You remind me of a retarded old teacher. This teachers would blame the person for throwing a spit ball if it landed next to them.

[palani]

You remind me of a retarded old teacher.

I was wondering where you got your training. On due consideration this would make sense.

[7th trump]

I was wondering where you got your training. On due consideration this would make sense.

I, unlike you palani, actually read statutes to understand them. Its called "root cause analysis". You know what root cause analysis is because you accused me of not researching when its you who has admitted to NOT reading the laws.

[palani]

I, unlike you palani, actually read statutes to understand them. Its called "root cause analysis". You know what root cause analysis is because you accused me of not researching when its you who has admitted to NOT reading the laws.

Statutes are not law.

Common law pleading was on its way out in 1850. It was replaced with what you call 'reading the statutes' ... aka 'code pleading'. In its turn code pleading was on its way out in 1950. It was replaced with notice pleading. You'll have to guess at what this means.

You are WAY behind the curve on this one (but I am not surprised at that).

[7th trump]

Statutes are not law.

Common law pleading was on its way out in 1850. It was replaced with what you call 'reading the statutes' ... aka 'code pleading'. In its turn code pleading was on its way out in 1950. It was replaced with notice pleading. You'll have to guess at what this means.

You are WAY behind the curve on this one (but I am not surprised at that).
I don't give a shit about "pleading" this or "pleading" that.....this pleading bullshit is yet another attempt at deflecting direct questions regarding your ability to understanding law. This deflection stunt of yours doesn't surprise me though.....its your METHOD OF OPERATION!

Why do you bring up "pleading" when we are talking about statutes?

And if statutes are not law then why do statutes make up 100% of the 50 titles of American law?

How fucking idiotic are you Palani?
You yap a lot of bullshit on this board and yet have no answers to your theories, when questioned, and posters questions that can be found in the 50 law titles of the United States of America.

Like I keep saying palani....you are lost in the law!

[palani]

I don't give a shit about "pleading" this or "pleading" that.....this pleading bullshit is yet another attempt at deflecting direct questions regarding your ability to understanding law. This deflection stunt of yours doesn't surprise me though.....its your METHOD OF OPERATION!

Why do you bring up "pleading" when we are talking about statutes?

And if statutes are not law then why do statutes make up 100% of the 50 titles of American law?

How fucking idiotic are you Palani?
You yap a lot of bullshit on this board and yet have no answers to your theories, when questioned, and posters questions that can be found in the 50 law titles of the United States of America.

Like I keep saying palani....you are lost in the law!

Yawn!!!!

[Bigjon]

I am not sure about this, but I put it in the field for you guys to play with. Have a ball.

The State tricks us into registering our vehicle as a passenger vehicle which is a commercial venue for the carrying of paying passengers. It is said by those guys at Pro Se that you can register it as a recreational or some other non-commercial vehicle and not owe any taxes or have to have a license. Sort of like a farmer doesn't need a license to drive his tractor on the road. Or if you get a license the cost is minimal.

[7th trump]

I am not sure about this, but I put it in the field for you guys to play with. Have a ball.

The State tricks us into registering our vehicle as a passenger vehicle which is a commercial venue for the carrying of paying passengers. It is said by those guys at Pro Se that you can register it as a recreational or some other non-commercial vehicle and not owe any taxes or have to have a license. Sort of like a farmer doesn't need a license to drive his tractor on the road. Or if you get a license the cost is minimal.
Not really...every state has statutes that says US citizens (14th amendment jurisdiction citizens) operate in commerce.
The organic US Constitution gives the federal central government authority to regulate commerce.......including you!
You are not private citizens that you think and believe you are, but citizens of the federal government. The federal government looks at this type of citizenship as "federal personel" (see 5usc 552a(13)) because you participate in an all voluntary social security that you can unvolunteer at any time.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a


(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States [/U[U]](including survivor benefits).
Social Security is just such a Government retirement program that has both immediate and deferred benefits......unemployment is one such immediate benefit. Being able to retire at 65 is the deferred benefit.

Social Security defines "state" and "united states" in the 1935 Act as:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3121


(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—

(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

So when you participate in this social totalitarian welfare program called "Social Security" the government is saying that you will be standing in their jurisdiction as a 14th amendment "US citizen".
And if you don't believe that just take a look at that definition of "state" above again and tell me that definition isn't defining federal territory.
None of those possessions, enclaves or territory have joined in with the union States to become the 51 state. But yet the Social Security Act lists these federal territories as a "state".
That act is telling you that you are no longer a private entity but an entity that is subject to Congress....including United Nations treaties that confiscate guns to over come the 2nd amendment. Even a treaty that makes the Constitution itself null and void.

Theres a lot palani doesn't tell you....he doesn't tell you because he doesn't understand LAW.
Palani doesn't have any answers because he's lost in the law from being to damn busy believing every armchair theory that comes his way.
Palani can talk all the bullshit theories he wants to believe, but Social Security is the only factor that puts Americans smack dab right into federal dictorial grasp.

[palani]

Social Security is the only factor that puts Americans smack dab right into federal dictorial grasp.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The U.S. Govt Printing Office Style Manual has a table of nationalities near the end that says 'American' is the nationality of the United States. Nearer the middle is a table of nationalities for those of the several States (50 of them ... I counted).

If you are 'American' you are of U.S. nationality and have turned down your nationality of birth.

You cannot even keep your story straight long enough to describe your own theory.

Jerk!!!

[7th trump]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The U.S. Govt Printing Office Style Manual has a table of nationalities near the end that says 'American' is the nationality of the United States. Nearer the middle is a table of nationalities for those of the several States (50 of them ... I counted).

If you are 'American' you are of U.S. nationality and have turned down your nationality of birth.

You cannot even keep your story straight long enough to describe your own theory.

Jerk!!!
Put up or shut up palani.
Show the law like I have (5usc 552a(13)) that says US nationality is "federal personnel".

Show any statute that says a "birth certificate" is giving up nationalities of even one(1) of the several states (50) you twit.
You cant because the statutes don't exist!
They don't exist because what you heard was some arm chair lawyerism bullshit which you are trying to pass it off as legit.

[7th trump]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The U.S. Govt Printing Office Style Manual has a table of nationalities near the end that says 'American' is the nationality of the United States. Nearer the middle is a table of nationalities for those of the several States (50 of them ... I counted).

If you are 'American' you are of U.S. nationality and have turned down your nationality of birth.

You cannot even keep your story straight long enough to describe your own theory.

Jerk!!!

There is no "theory" about 5usc 552a(13)....its right there in black and white.

It specifically states any retirement program of the government of the United States is going to turn any participant into "federal personnel".
Just what do you think the Social Security Administration is jerk?
The SSA is a federal government agency......whats so hard about understanding that?
Ohhh wait....that's right ....the straight up definition doesn't imply a conspiracy....it flat out tells you.....no wonder you have a hard time comprehending......your infected with a conspiracy mind set after listening to all those arm chair theories.
You're a god damned conspiracy drama queen aren't you palani.

[palani]

Show the law like I have (5usc 552a(13)) that says US nationality is "federal personnel".

Nemo potest esse tenes et dominus. No man can be at the same time tenant and landlord of the same tenement.

If you think YOU are the landlord then why don't you fix the damned roof? The place leaks like a sieve and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue needs fumigating.

[7th trump]

Nemo potest esse tenes et dominus. No man can be at the same time tenant and landlord of the same tenement.

If you think YOU are the landlord then why don't you fix the damned roof? The place leaks like a sieve and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue needs fumigating.

Hahahah.......bravo palani!

palani having a hissy fit because he cannot procure the necessary statute to support his bullshit.
No statute means palani is chasing make believe fairy's and snipe hunting all at the sane time.

I'm my own land lord when it comes to keeping all of my pay check....verses you don't and don't have a clue to where to start to keep your paycheck.
Looks like you are the one who's behind in things, not I!
Ohhhh-well..........I guess that's the price palani pays for not reading the law in understanding law.

Something just accrued to me about you palani.........why the hell are you reading a Government Printing Manuel in understanding what causes an individual to fall under national or state citizenships in the first place?
Are you that lazy you cant research the actual 50 LAW titles?

Did you think really think a printing brochure is going to explain the laws and how they interact with each other?
You're fucking kidding me right?
Say it isn't so palani....please tell me you aren't that freaken lazy or stupid.

Am I really having a discussion with someone who is this mental?

[Uncle Salty]

The state has legal title. The car 'owner' has equitable title. A trust was formed when the MSO was handed over to the DMV/Sec of State or whatever state agency handles these.

If I buy a car for cash. Drive it for three years and then sell it for cash. Why would I get to keep the cash if the 'state' owns the car? Well, they don't really own it from an equity point of view now do they? They only have legal title.

[palani]

.. because he cannot procure the necessary statute

Indications of a delusional asshat. Statutes are necessary? What I gave was a maxim. Read all about them here:


MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.

[palani]

If I buy a car for cash. Drive it for three years and then sell it for cash. Why would I get to keep the cash if the 'state' owns the car?

You are only selling what you possess and that is not the legal title. The thing sold might be the use of the car or the usufruct of the car or something entirely different.


USE, civil law. A right of receiving so much of the natural profits of a thing as is necessary to daily sustenance; it differs from usufruct, which is a right not only to use but to enjoy.

USUFRUCT, civil law. The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing.