29 April A.D. 2009
Word games.
Word games.
Word games.
We've learned something if we see the horrific error in thinking committed by JOAN LOWY. (Whether it's deliberate misleading or ignorance is unknown at present.)
Note the difference between the term in the Subject line ("vehicle") and the terms in that very first paragraph ("cars" and "trucks").
A "vehicle" is something used for "transportation," which is a line of commercial activity that involves the removing of people and/or goods from here to there for profit or hire under a choice of law of the "place" called "this state."
A "vehicle" is something made "transportation ready" via the scam by which we're suckered into trading a "full title" (the MSO) for a "legal title only" (the "certificate of title"). In other words, no STATE may/can compel us to put our otherwise private property into use/service as commercial property. THAT transaction has to be 100% voluntary. And, it is, because it's evaluated by the "objective standard" associated with "this state" (a body of law that is counter-intuitive to us) rather than the "subjective standard" which is associated with the Law of the Land (the body of law that is intuitive to us).
A "vehicle" IS something that may very well be subject to regulation by the state/federal regulators, because it's "commercial property" that may be "in use" for "transportation" activities.
A "car" or a "truck" is private property.
No state or federal agency has any authority to regulate private property. But, they may/can regulate property in which they have an ownership interest, which happens every time we trade the "full title" (the MSO) for a "legal title only" (a "certificate of title"), which transactions happen because "we" have been "taught" to think that the STATE may regulate whatever it wants to regulate. Thus, we are purposefully distracted from the legal reality, which is based, fundamentally, on using our signature against us.
STATE may/can regulate "commerce." But, STATE may never compel us into "commerce," and STATE may never compel us into any agreement. So, if "we" have "voluntarily" put our "car" or "truck" into trust, which is what happens when we "voluntary" trade our MSO (which most people never even knows to exist) for the "certificate of title," we've "voluntarily" made our otherwise and formerly private property into "transportation ready" property in which STATE has an ownership interest (as a beneficiary).
And, it's ONLY the "transportation ready" property, in which STATE has an ownership interest, that STATE may subject to this "mileage/use tax." And, then, ONLY if the "use" of that "transportation ready" property is actually that of "transportation."
Let's put this series of transactions together to get our mind around what the "legislative" bodies from coast to coast have suckered us into, with full compliance by the auto manufacturers (around the world, that is, not just domestically, but around the world). When the car/truck is manufactured, it has a "full title" document, typically called the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO). When we buy that car/truck from the dealership, we "never" see the MSO. We're simply charged for "tax, TITLE, and license," and we pay the money. That MSO, which we "never" see, is the best evidence of our full and complete ownership of the full and complete title to that car/truck. When we trade that away, along with paying a fee for having someone else process the transaction, what we do is set up a trust. We retain the "legal title," and the "equitable title" ends up in some STATE agency or other. For purposes of this discussion, let's call that STATE agency the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, or DOT. In reality, on a state-by-state basis, it may or may not be the DOT, but to illustrate the point here, we'll call the beneficiary by the label of DOT. What we get back from DOT is a "certificate of title," which proves very little more than the fact that a "full title" exists somewhere. And, by this transaction, evaluated under the "objective standard" in/of the "place" called "this state," which means that about the only thing that matters is our signature, we set up a trust. And, then, because we're the fiduciary of that trust, we can't "use" that trust property for our purposes without abusing the beneficiary. So, for the fiduciary to use the trust property, the fiduciary has to "rent" it. And, where the fiduciary uses the trust property for the purposes of the trust, here, as a "vehicle," i.e., in that line of commerce called "transportation," then the beneficiary may expect a distribution from the trust.
In a nutshell, to see the legal reality is to see that we've being suckered into giving away our private property, in trust, so that the benefit of the commercial use of that formerly private property goes to the STATE.
We can then drill down even further into these trust-based scams, which are VERY British in nature (they are the masters of the dirty tricks campaigns the world over), to see the Scriptural side. To whom is owed the "first" duty in a trust relationship by the fiduciary? Right, the beneficiary. Where the beneficiary is STATE, where, then, go one's "first fruits?" Right, again, to STATE. Here, reflect mightily on the "image" shown to Daniel. It's of a "man," which "man" symbolizes the "government" set up by man to be worshiped by man as a substitute for worshiping God. And, here we are.
A trust is a form of ownership by which the "full title" to property is split. That's the purpose/consequence of setting up a trust. The "full title" is split. There are then two "owners." There's a "legal title" owner, who is called the fiduciary (or the trustee), and there's an "equitable title" owner, who is called the beneficiary.
Where DOT is the beneficiary, DOT has an "ownership" interest in that car/truck. That, in and of itself, does NOT make that car/truck a "vehicle." What makes that car/truck a "vehicle" is its USE for "transportation," which is that line of commerce in which people and/or goods are removed from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the "place" called "this state." This is mentioned just to say that for STATE or "the feds" to collect that "mileage tax," the claimant is going to have to prove up both (1) it's ownership in that car/truck AND (2) it's "commercial" "use" in the specific line of commerce called "transportation."
Word games.
Word games.
Word games.
All details matter.
The best solution is to have "full title" to the car/truck. There is never a question as to its intended "use" that way. Those in a position to articulate the difference between "commercial" "use," in particular in the area of "use" for "transportation," are the ones in the position to make this one work.
Next best is to work toward the best solution by learning the "commercial" terms and what they mean. Key to the commercial terms is that we cannot be compelled to agree that the property is being "used" for "transportation" purposes. If you're not in the business of removing people and/or goods from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the "place" called "this state," then changes are quite HIGH that you don't really have a "vehicle," but only a "car" or a "truck." If you don't have a "vehicle," and if you are comfortable you know how to articulate the difference, then even if your "car" or "truck" is already "transportation ready" (i.e, owned in trust, which is best evidenced by the existence of a license plate/ tag), then it's still not a done deal for the "tax collectors."
It's not the "mileage" that is at issue, but "the USE of the car/truck" for those miles that is at issue. And, since the "tax" will apply NOT to "cars" and "trucks," as so incompetently asserted by JOAN LOWY, but ONLY to "vehicles," what STATE or "the feds" will HAVE to prove is "transportation" "use" of that "transportation ready" (but not necessarily "used for transportation") car/truck.
Here's an analogy. Let's say that someone goes to visit family. Let's say that this someone is a "taxpayer" and regularly files a 1040 with the standard, normal deductions. Let's say that this someone takes a mileage deduction for those miles traveled to visit family. Let's say that there's an audit. What result? You know instantly what result! "NO MILEAGE DEDUCTION!" Why not?! Because those are note even "commercial" (business) miles, much less "transportation" business miles. Those are "personal" miles. So, "NO DEDUCTION!"
Let's reflect on this from another angle. Where there is not even "commercial use," whatever the line of commerce, there is no factual basis for any mileage deduction. So, looking at this going the other way, where there is no mileage deduction allowed, there is not even "commercial" activity at issue.
In the logic analysis, we're talking about the contrapositive.
Statement: If commercial USE, then tax deduction allowed.
Contrapositive: If no tax deduction allowed, then no commercial USE.
Applying that to this "VEHICLE mileage tax" concept, we see this. On the one hand, the car/truck "legal title ONLY" owner is being "taxed" on ALL miles traveled. BUT, as we just identified, there'll be no deduction for non-commercial use miles. It's this "non-commercial" use concept that is the key. If the car/truck is NOT used "commercially enough" to justify a tax DEDUCTION, then it's ALSO NOT used "commercially enough" to qualify it as a "vehicle," for a "vehicle" is not only "commercially used," but also specifically used for "transportation" purposes, which means used in removing people and/'or goods from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the "place" called "this state."
Thus, a "transportation ready" car/truck that is never used in the "transportation" business is never a "vehicle." Thus, on the one hand, there's no "tax deduction" available, because all that the car/truck has been used for, in the eyes of "this state," has been "travel." And, where there is no "tax deduction" due to the non-commercial "use" of that car/truck, then there is 100% confirmation that we're not talking about any "vehicle," at all.
Word games.
Word games.
Word games.
Where there is no "vehicle," there is no "mileage tax." Period.
A "car" or "truck" is not even "transportation ready" property, so it's legally impossible for any "car" or "truck" to be subjected to this "vehicle mileage tax" concept.
Now, where there IS the existence of the license tag (the sending back of which does NOT terminate that trust, by the way; where one transaction creates the problem, it takes another transaction to fix the problem; returning the license tags MAY be sufficient evidence of "non-commercial," and more to the point, "non-transportation," "use" of that car/truck, which evidence of intent MAY BE sufficient for some purposes, but the mere returning of the tags does NOT terminate that trust), thus, where the IS evidence that the car/truck is "transportation ready," that is nowhere near the end of the legal or factual analysis, here. WHAT MATTERS IS THE "USE" of that car/truck. IF that car/truck IS being "used" for the purpose of removing people and/or goods from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the "place" called "this state," THEN there's a "USE" subject to the "vehicle mileage tax." Otherwise, there is no "vehicle;" hence, no factual basis for any "vehicle mileage tax."
To readdress the full scenario, we have this. We're suckered into placing the car/truck into trust, by which that car/truck is made "transportation ready." Then, if we "USE" what could have been our very own private property for "transportation" purposes, then we're subject to a "vehicle mileage tax." What is that "tax," really? It's "rent." You see, a fiduciary can't "use" trust property for his/her own purposes. That's a very common basis for claims of fiduciary abuse and trust mismanagement and even willful misappropriation. The fiduciary conducts himself and manages that property at all times for the benefit of the beneficiary. So, for a fiduciary to "use" trust property, s/he has to compensate the trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Thus, in short, we're being suckered into putting our otherwise private property in trust so that we can then "rent" it from that trust. And, where the property is used for the purpose of the trust, then the beneficiary may expect a distribution from the increase to that trust if that's what the terms of the trust call for.
Pretty cool scam, huh?!
On a related matter, those "Tea Party" events were very popular. Now, who would like to hazard a guess as to how many commercial transactions were successfully corrected by means of those political activities?!
We are not dealing with political problems. We are dealing with commercial problems. We've been "taught" to engage and pursue political activities for the specific purpose of allowing "venting" that ends up having little to no affect on the policy-makers. While we're investing all that time, "money," and energy into those political activities, we're not studying into the commercial realities of these various forms of vexation. Those commercial problems are based on heavily doped-up, biased, slanted, legal terms; hence, the word game problems we face.
JOAN LOWY is in wonderful company, and she doesn't "get it," yet. There is a manifest difference between "vehicle," which IS subject to regulation, because it refers to something "used" for "transportation" purposes, and a "car" or a "truck," which are labels used to describe private property.
STATE cannot compel anyone to turn private property into commercial "use" property.
STATE cannot compel anyone to go into the "transportation" business.
To turn private property into commercial property is a purely voluntary act, in the eyes of the law of the "place" called "this state."
To engage oneself in the "transportation" business is a purely voluntary act, in the eyes of the law of the "place" called "this state."
To learn the word games is to learn how to defend oneself against this ever-growing menace called "government." This thing called "government" stops growing when it is no longer "fed." It is no longer "fed" when we learn how to stop paying it to control us and our property.
This "vehicle mileage tax" concept is a very good "test case" by which to learn how to stop paying "them" to control us and our property.
Word games.
Word games.
Word games.
They use their words for a reason. If we agree to their words, we've hosed ourselves, which is their very plan. Just ask the Kelo family how this works out. That's a land issue based on this same "word game" platform.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Life is going to get more complicated and expensive for those in "this state."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/28/national/w113551D21.
DTL&feed=rss.business
Top lawmaker wants mileage-based tax on vehicles
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
(04-28) 11:57 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
A House committee chairman said Tuesday that he wants Congress to enact a mileage-based
tax on cars and trucks to pay for highway programs now rather than wait years to test the idea.
Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage
tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such
a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.
"Why do we need a pilot program? Why don't we just phase it in?" said Oberstar, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman. Oberstar is drafting a six-year
transportation bill to fund highway and transit programs that is expected to total around
a half trillion dollars.
A congressionally mandated commission on transportation financing alternatives recommended
switching to a vehicle-miles traveled tax, but estimated it would take a decade to put a
national system in place.
"I think it can be done in far less than that, maybe two years," Oberstar said at a
House hearing. He was responding to testimony by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who
recommended that the transportation bill include pilot programs in every state to test
the viability of a mileage-based tax.
Blumenauer said public acceptance, not technology, is the main obstacle to a mileage-based
tax.
Pilot programs "would be able to increase public awareness and comfort and it would hasten
the day we could make the transition," Blumenauer said.
Oberstar shrugged off that concern.
"I'm at a point of impatience with more studies," Oberstar said. He suggested that Rep.
Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the highways and transit subcommittee, set up a meeting
of transportation experts and members of Congress to figure out how it could be done.
The tax would entail equipping vehicles with GPS technology to determine how many miles a car
has been driven and whether on interstate highways or secondary roads. The devices would also
calculate the amount of tax owed.
"At this point there are a lot of things that are under consideration and there is also a
strong need to find revenue," Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said. "A vehicle miles-traveled tax
is a logical complement, and perhaps a future replacement, for fuel taxes."
Gas tax revenues — the primary source of federal funding for highway programs— have dropped
dramatically in the last two years, first because gas prices were high and later because of
the economic downturn. They are forecast to continue going down as drivers switch to fuel
efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes to make up for the funding
shortfall, and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax. They have not offered an
alternative.
"The funding of the highway trust fund is a complex issue that will require consultation with
Congress and consideration of a number of creative ideas," said Transportation Department
spokeswoman Jill Zuckman. "The secretary looks forward to working with Chairman Oberstar and
others as they consider how to keep the highway trust fund going."
A mileage-based tax has been unpopular in some states where it has been proposed. Critics say
it unfairly penalizes drivers who live in rural areas and intrudes on privacy.
"When we can solve the equity issues to a majority's satisfaction in the Congress, when we can
solve the privacy issues to the satisfaction of the American people, we can look at moving
forward, but I just don't think we have the data or the experience right now to say we can set
a timeline or a deadline," DeFazio said in a recent interview.
No comments:
Post a Comment