Mr Gear challenges CoP & T. C. over Tint Pg. 5

RASC · Postby **RASC** » March 24th, 2009, 1:37 pm

Mr Gear

T&T needs more action takers like yourself. Regardless of the outcome, I would like to personally THANK YOU for setting the great example!

Aaron 2NR · Postby **Aaron 2NR** » March 24th, 2009, 1:38 pm

well done Nebert...in full support.....

originalbling · Postby **originalbling** » March 24th, 2009, 1:41 pm

ok folks, I made some calls concerning copies of the relevant laws.

Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act - Chapter 48:50 can be obtained at the Government Printery for $30.00 each.

Copies of Amendments 20,21 and 22 costs $6.90.

Someone at the Law Revision Commission said that updated versions including Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Enforcement and Administration) - Chap 48:52 as well as any other chapter can be downloaded and printed from the Ministry of Legal Affairs website:
http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws/con ... ntents.htm

This is the most up to date versions and they will speak to the Chairman of the LRC to see if these can also be made available through the Gov't Printery. but in the meantime get it from the website.

It may also be useful if people like Aaron 2NR and the rest who have been ticketed to gather the necessary info eg: pics of your lights and copies of the tickets to show the discrepanies etc.

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Rodfarva, law jargon aside, he presumes what is currently enforced as misinterpretation based on what is HIS interpretation of how the law should be applied. Breaking the law is one thing. Twisting the law to your personal satisfaction is another. All I am saying is the law is there to be bent ie interpreted. It is not a matter of what is right or wrong, broken or upheld, but if what is written legally allows for what is being enforced.

originalbling · Postby **originalbling** » March 24th, 2009, 1:48 pm

AP, when last were these laws updated - check and you will see references to carriages and thing - do we still use dem ting in trinidad???

nobody is trying to twist no law to suit their personal satisfaction - we are just saying be a little more specific and do some updating where necessary.

Postby **crazybalhead** » March 24th, 2009, 1:51 pm

Yuh know Mr. gear, instead of lashing out at AP, as she says, she is playing Devil's Advocate and makes a compelling argument. Offer a rebutal, instead of "Is my ball and me eh playing!".

rodfarva · Postby **rodfarva** » March 24th, 2009, 1:53 pm

AbstractPoetic wrote:Rodfarva, law jargon aside, he presumes what is currently enforced as misinterpretation based on what is HIS interpretation of how the law should be applied. Breaking the law is one thing. Twisting the law to your personal satisfaction is another. All I am saying is the law is there to be bent ie interpreted. It is not a matter of what is right or wrong, broken or upheld, but if what is written legally allows for what is being enforced.

We are not yet aware of "what is written", since we have
not yet read the documents to which Mr. Gear is referring.

No blanket statements can be considered accurate at this point.

jrdeals · Postby **jrdeals** » March 24th, 2009, 1:54 pm

The constitution also implies that it is the right of the individual to own property and the right to privacy.

bluesteel29 · Postby **bluesteel29** » March 24th, 2009, 1:59 pm

Mr Gear,well done..cant wait to hear the outcome.
you have a venue or its a private meeting?

AbstractPoetic,u said in a thread awhile back that most 2ners dont like you cause u speak ur mind...now i can see why....
i admit u have valid points in some disscussions... but are u turned On by 3n2ner arguements/debates?
Calm ur face and try not being so cawky fuh once....with that said....Hope u have a wonderful afternoon mam. :wink:

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 2:02 pm

Original bling, most of the legislation has been amended, some updated as late as 2008. Reading these Amendments are paramount as they change how the law should be applied. Another example of how no legislation is ever set in stone.

honda hoe · Postby **honda hoe** » March 24th, 2009, 2:04 pm

i not a lwayer an of course i don't know what mr gear's argument will be but for once i could see where AP comin from

she's makes some interesting counter points

but i don't think she's trying to condone the actions of the police

as she said... she's playin devil's advocate

no need to get personal ppl

rodfarva · Postby **rodfarva** » March 24th, 2009, 2:07 pm

honda hoe wrote:no need to get personal ppl

x2

biggy82 · Postby **biggy82** » March 24th, 2009, 2:09 pm

Mr Gear wrote:See Part II Section 12. (1) to 13 (3)

Also

Section 15. (1) (a)
Section 23. (1) (d)
Section 30
First Schedule Form 3

Highlight and read up these references for some intelligent debate soon to be posted.

ummm, the link you quoted has this section "repealed by Act #9 of 1997"

please clarify

cornfused · Postby **cornfused** » March 24th, 2009, 2:24 pm

honda hoe wrote:i not a lwayer an of course i don't know what mr gear's argument will be but for once i could see where AP comin from

she's makes some interesting counter points

but i don't think she's trying to condone the actions of the police

as she said... she's playin devil's advocate

no need to get personal ppl

And of course if this was revealed by AP more than a few posts ago, we would or should have a more informed thread .

EL JEFE · Postby **EL JEFE** » March 24th, 2009, 2:54 pm

cornfused wrote:
honda hoe wrote:i not a lwayer an of course i don't know what mr gear's argument will be but for once i could see where AP comin from

she's makes some interesting counter points

but i don't think she's trying to condone the actions of the police

as she said... she's playin devil's advocate

no need to get personal ppl

And of course if this was revealed by AP more than a few posts ago, we would or should have a more informed thread .

Some things have to be interpreted. :lol:

AutoSport · Postby **AutoSport** » March 24th, 2009, 3:03 pm

So Mr. Gear has the tremendous support of all and sundry, from behind the keyboards. Hope when the day comes to go to Court, we see the crowd coming along also.

Hope yuh doh bounce up one of these thoughâ€¦

The judge had not yet put in an appearance in the San Diego traffic court. When the bailiff entered the courtroom, he sensed the nervousness of the traffic offenders awaiting their ordeal.

"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen," he said. "Welcome to 'What's My Fine?' "
-- W. W. Mcfarland

SUPAstarr · Postby **SUPAstarr** » March 24th, 2009, 3:04 pm

ok since my MVRT is in my car in the shop, i walked across a got a new one and ammendments cost $41.40, looks like only 10 or so more copies for now ( i suggest ppl get it, it a good read an very informative). Was told call 627 9700 for finance library for Finance Bill 1993 (they may have had the act but said some stuff on the bill may not be on the act) but of course they not answerin de fone. Shud be a good read!!

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 3:27 pm

Finance Bill of 1993 is made available online, inclusive of any revisions and amendments.

SUPAstarr · Postby **SUPAstarr** » March 24th, 2009, 3:30 pm

Searched by that name an didnt find it, do you hav a link

Postby **Greypatch** » March 24th, 2009, 4:13 pm

AbstractPoetic wrote:Finance Bill of 1993 is made available online, inclusive of any revisions and amendments.

please post a link

Postby **Mr Gear** » March 24th, 2009, 4:34 pm

AbstractPoetic wrote:Nebert, I have obtained PDF copies of most of the legislation aforementioned. I will peruse tonight and return for a discussion and/or debate. Don't be surprised if no other tuner comes prepared. At least I will be. I look forward to the discussion and dissemination of information that is there to empower the citizens.

This is the approach I appreciate from you. I will always treat with you in a mature manner when you take this approach.

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 6:59 pm

Mr Gear wrote:Another clue to this tint issue. Get a copy of the Finance Bill 1993. (Road Improvement Tax.)

The road improvement tax has been incorporated into the petroleum excise tax regime thereby removing the need for a separate collection authority and earmarking the tax. Within this framework, the road improvement tax has been abolished with effect from October 01, 2005. The removal of the road improvement tax was made effective from October 01, 2005 by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Order, 2005 and contained in Legal Notice No. 249 of 2005

http://www.pwc.com/cb/images/pdf/BudgetMemo2006.pdf

http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20051018.pdf

The Improvement Tax, while introduced in 1993 under the 1993 Finance Bill, was later abolished in 2005.

Nebert, you may be in need of a major intervention to ensure you don't embarass yourself by making an argument/stance that is supported by outdated and abolished legislation(s).

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 7:05 pm

Greypatch wrote:
AbstractPoetic wrote:Finance Bill of 1993 is made available online, inclusive of any revisions and amendments.

please post a link

The revisions and amendments are available on the TT Parliament Website.

As for the Finance Bill of 1993, I'm in the process of obtaining that. I wrongfully assumed the 1993 Supplemental and Appropriation bills were in fact the initial bill passed.

As soon as I get a hold of that in PDF, I'll post it up, though, given my recent discovery, it may no longer apply in supporting the OP's argument.

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 7:16 pm

biggy82 wrote:
Mr Gear wrote:See Part II Section 12. (1) to 13 (3)

Also

Section 15. (1) (a)
Section 23. (1) (d)
Section 30
First Schedule Form 3

Highlight and read up these references for some intelligent debate soon to be posted.

ummm, the link you quoted has this section "repealed by Act #9 of 1997"

please clarify

The man sticking.

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 7:25 pm

rodfarva wrote:
AbstractPoetic wrote:
Mr. Gear wrote:How can you say what I have premised my argument on when I have not even presented my argument yet ?

Read your below words, slowly:
Mr Gear wrote:Yes folks, your not so friendly citizen's advocate is set to throw down against the Commissioner of Police and the Transport Commissioner this Thursday over their misinterpretation of the laws governing tint.

That's your stance sir. Misinterpretation of the laws. Misinterpretation of how the law should be treated and applied.

He has not yet presented his case, in which he finds that the law has been misinterpreted.
The law can be misinterpreted to such a degree that it is actually broken. If this is so, then Mr. Gear has a very valid point. It is a bit presumptuous of you to analyze his intent without actually knowing what it is.

Misinterpretation to the point of ignorance is not legally recognized.

Yes, it can be misinterpreted. We are not arguing that.

What we are arguing is whether or not he can legally prove the law IS being misinterpreted,

AND

If the actions taken by those enforcing the law is due to a misinterpretation of what SHOULD be legally allowed.

He already makes the argument that how the legislation is being enforced is due to a misinterpretation of the law, which, by extension, may make it illegal to act in X manner because it is not legally accomodated under X legislation.

However, he must prove that. And relying on outdated legislation will not help him in making a solid argument.

nello-sello · Postby **nello-sello** » March 24th, 2009, 8:18 pm

^^ Steups I now saying this thread going to get interesting

Cjruckus · Postby **Cjruckus** » March 24th, 2009, 8:50 pm

AbstractPoetic · Postby **AbstractPoetic** » March 24th, 2009, 9:43 pm

Mr Gear wrote:See Part II Section 12. (1) to 13 (3)

Also

Section 15. (1) (a)
Section 23. (1) (d)
Section 30
First Schedule Form 3

Highlight and read up these references for some intelligent debate soon to be posted.

I'm ready when you are.

X_Factor · Postby **X_Factor** » March 24th, 2009, 11:49 pm

is it possible someone can put up pics or links to the actual articles or laws to be researched?

gt4tified · Postby **gt4tified** » March 25th, 2009, 12:26 am

www.ttparliament.org

www.legalaffairs.gov.tt

Misinterpretation of the Law is something I have to deal with on an ongoing basis where I work....its amazing every time you find a new one.