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

[AbstractPoetic]

I find all the big talkers get real quiet. The man has a deadline for tomorrow. Where has all the support gone? All talk, no action?

[Zeriam]

AbstractPoetic i didnt know u worked in the police service. i assumed this was going to be directed to the cop and tc on thursday and said discussions would be posted on the same or later date. i might be wrong

i support cause when i roll out with my tint on the back half of my car i dont want to get stopped or there will be big scene caused on the nation roads by me

[rodfarva]

I find all the big talkers get real quiet. The man has a deadline for tomorrow. Where has all the support gone? All talk, no action?

chill girl... tomorrow

[Mr Gear]

The epic Tint removal exercise has caused much debate and anxiety amongst both the motoring and non-motoring population.

Regardless of which side of the argument you support, a loop hole in the law could mean that the Police Commissioner and the Transport Commissioner can end up being called to answer for their actions by forcing vehicle owners to remove window tint at the side of the road.

Lets go to the legislation. Specifically

MV & RTA Chapter 48:50

Part II Section 12(1) to 13(3)
Part II Section 15 (1) (a)
Part II Section 23(1) (d)
Part II Section 30
Part II Section 91

First Schedule Form 3 – This is a diagram of a License Sticker

The very first element to interpreting the law here is to understand that in the Act, there are no definitions of the words, “Registrationâ€

[AbstractPoetic]

It was implored by the OP that we read and research some of his references for further discussion. For those that did, holes were found in his argument and in documents used to support his argument. The initial cry of "YES WE CAN" has since been died down to a small whimper by those who have so much to say but do little to act. I am more than certain many continue to remain oblivious to the laws despite the proactive approach taken by one of their own. A darn shame.

[Mr Gear]

It was implored by the OP that we read and research some of his references for further discussion. For those that did, holes were found in his argument and in documents used to support his argument.

It really puzzles me that you could write that holes were found in my argument when I did not even put up my argument. You really need to relax. read up, the argument (the only one) has just been posted.

[originalbling]

Interesting arguments Mr. Gear.

when the Transport Commissioner writes you and gives you the opportunity to show reason why your registration should not be cancelled,

has this ever happened or maybe its just that citizens dont know they have a right to challenge and simply comply or take ticket and pay?
I see you made mention of the 35% tint - is this the unofficial "acceptable" limit other factors considered?

Also - what are your thoughts regarding the "unauthorised" lights some people are getting charged for?



AP,now that his full argument has been posted and with your seemingly better knowledge of the laws, can you point out the weak points of his arguments (with justification) so that we can be further educated?

[Mr Gear]

Can't focus on lights just yet.

I used 35% tint as a reference only since it is widely accepted that 35% is thought to be the legal limit. Nothing in the legislation defines tint grades by percentage or otherwise. The test is whether you can see the inside of the car from on the outside.

I have seen a letter from the TC giving the owner opportunity to show reason why the registration should not be cancelled. This was not a tint matter however.

Most people just don't know their rights and take the bullying.

[Mr Gear]

I am going to challenge the CoP and the TC to enforce ALL LAWS as they have promised to do.

I want them to enforce Part II Section (12) 8

Whenever the registered owner of a motor vehicle is about to absent himself from Trinidad & Tobago, he shall notify the Licensing Authority in writing of the name and address of the person in whose charge or possession the vehicle will be left.

I know that the Honourable Prime Minister Patrick Manning is out of the country so if he being the registered owner of a motor vehicle did not inform the Licensing Authority as is required by law, he should be the first charged.

[Mr Gear]

The law is never set in stone. Laws are meant to be interpreted, biases and hypocrisy aside. You will lose.

What do you have to say now?

[AbstractPoetic]

I am going to challenge the CoP and the TC to enforce ALL LAWS as they have promised to do.

I want them to enforce Part II Section (12) 8

Whenever the registered owner of a motor vehicle is about to absent himself from Trinidad & Tobago, he shall notify the Licensing Authority in writing of the name and address of the person in whose charge or possession the vehicle will be left.

I know that the Honourable Prime Minister Patrick Manning is out of the country so if he being the registered owner of a motor vehicle did not inform the Licensing Authority as is required by law, he should be the first charged.

I will start with this challenge as it is the most easily dismissed.

1. Cpt. Gary Griffith is the registered owner of the motor vehicle(s), not PM Manning. All bills of sale and signatures registering the PM's vehicle(s) is under Griffith's name, not the Honourable PM Patrick Manning.


2. Now onto tearing apart your "argument". Excuse me for just a quick moment. This is going to be so much fun.

[Mr Gear]

Manning has private vehicles apart from official vehicles

This is my point exactly. I never mentioned official vehicles. AP just jumps to conclusions willy nilly. She is so anxious to read her own posts that she does not stop to read what she is responding to.

I wonder how she gets along in day to day business relations ??

[wagonrunner]

Manning has private vehicles apart from official vehicles

This is my point exactly. I never mentioned official vehicles. AP just jumps to conclusions willy nilly. She is so anxious to read her own posts that she does not stop to read what she is responding to.

I wonder how she gets along in day to day business relations ??

more than likely the same pattern as other relations, she heard................. what apparently was not said.

[tr1ad]

ca caw?

[originalbling]

I will start with this challenge as it is the most easily dismissed.

1. Cpt. Gary Griffith is the registered owner of the motor vehicle(s), not PM Manning. All bills of sale and signatures registering the PM's vehicle(s) is under Griffith's name, not the Honourable PM Patrick Manning.


2. Now onto tearing apart your "argument". Excuse me for just a quick moment. This is going to be so much fun.

Let me challenge this.

What does Gary Griffith have to do with being the owner of the PM's vehicle? Was this done when he was Aide-de-Camp? Is he still with TTDF or even employed by the Govt?

Then what connection does he still have to be the registered owner?

[SUPAstarr]

fack i hav de readin to do still

[Mr Gear]

Don't even bother. The more I read from AP the more I'm dissapointed that she is the Devil's advocate. The Devil himself must be vex too.

Even if Capt Griffith or anyone else signs the registration documents for official government vehicles, that does not make that person the registered owner but simply a representative of the registered owner. A simple review of the registration documents will show the registered owner of official vehicles as being the respective Ministry/Government body etc. It will never be an individual whether employed by the Government or not. Duh

[TriniVdub]

I dont know why u guys even bother to take on AP, from the time i c her post i just breeze pass it

[AbstractPoetic]

Well, Nebert, before I begin my challenge lets summarize yours, shall we?

Resolve:
In lieu of the provisions made under CHAPTER 48:50 MOTOR VEHICLES AND ROAD TRAFFIC ACT ("MVRTA") of Trinidad and Tobago, the actions taken by police authority and license authority are due to their abuse/misinterpretation of what is legally allowed under the MVRTA. Their current actions in "forcing the removal" of what they deem as illegal tint "on the side of the road" is an abuse of action, is not legally allowed within the confines of the legislation, and, as such, are subjected to legal sanctions and/or civil law suit by the victims of such enforcement.

Rules of Law:
CHAPTER 48:50 MOTOR VEHICLES AND ROAD TRAFFIC ACT
Part II Section 12(1) to 13(3)
Part II Section 15 (1) (a)
Part II Section 23(1) (d)
Part II Section 30
Part II Section 91
First Schedule Form 3 (Diagram of a License Sticker)
Finance Bill of 1993

Scope:
This resolve only applies to those with 'tint that is border line' and not applicable to those with "really dark tint" as "nothing in what I [Nebert] have written will save your soul."

Assuming that we are on the same page, the next post to follow will begin my challenge to what you have posted in pursuit of, as always, a healthy debate.

[bluesteel29]

Hi AbstractPoetic, how u doing on this lovely Wednesday afternoon?

[AbstractPoetic]

PART I

Lets go to the legislation. Specifically

MV & RTA Chapter 48:50

Part II Section 12(1) to 13(3)
Part II Section 15 (1) (a)
Part II Section 23(1) (d)
Part II Section 30
Part II Section 91

First Schedule Form 3 – This is a diagram of a License Sticker

Part II, Section 30, a provision which you have referenced on more than one occasion in this thread was repealed by Finance Act No. 9 of 1997.

[quote]The very first element to interpreting the law here is to understand that in the Act, there are no definitions of the words, “Registrationâ€

[AbstractPoetic]

PART II

Prior to 1993 Private Motor vehicles were required to pay a renewal license fee. The License expired annually on December 31. The License sticker First Schedule Form 3 was traditionally affixed to the top center of the front windscreen although the law required it to be displayed on the lower left of the front windscreen.. The requirement to pay the renewable license fee and obtain a license sticker was abolished in the Finance Bill of 1993 by then Finance Minister Brian Kuei Tung when he introduced the 5% Road Improvement Tax. So when Section 30 refers to cancellation of the vehicle license, it is referring to the Form 3 (sticker) in the first schedule and not the Motor Vehicle Registration which can only be cancelled as described in Part II Section 15(1) (a).

Thanks for the historical anecdote but this is simply seen as banter. What WAS will have no bearings on what IS, especially when Section 30 has been repealed by Act 9 of 1997. This is the body of law you will have to make mention, not an archaic provision.

A recent amendment in the law changed all that. Section 30 was abolished and Parliament revised section 15 to include cancellation of REGISTRATION for breach of Section 23(1) (d).

Correct.

So the CoP still does not have the authority to cancel your registration but the Transport Commissioner does but this power is not absolute and it cannot be enforced immediately on the spot at the side of the road, because subsection 5 above provides an avenue for appeal of the decision of the Licensing Authority.

1. We've established that under Part II, Section 23(1A):

The Licensing Authority shall cancel the registration of any vehicle or trailer referred to in subsection (1) where, in relation to that vehicle or trailer, subsection (1) is contravened.

and "Licensing Authority" under the Act is defined as:

[b][quote]“Licensing Authorityâ€

[AbstractPoetic]

PART III

I doubt that the exercises being conducted at the side of the road can accommodate the Licensing Authority being able to write the registered owner, post the letter to the registered address to be of legal effect (registered mail) and be able to cancel the registration at the side of the road. This is not possible or practical but the due process of law must be observed and the Licensing Authority must follow the law for their actions to be of legal effect. The requirement for them to write the notice of cancellation provides the opportunity for the owner to appeal the decision as per Section 13(1) (3).

You have it confused.

The Transport Officer issues the cancellation of notice. (Part III, Section 37 (2)

The person can then appeal to the Licensing Authority. (Part II Section 13 (3)

The Licensing Authority may order that the cancellation shall be confirmed or that the licence be restored to the holder. (Part III, Section 37 (3)

It still aggrieved, you can appeal to Trinidad Transport Board whose decision shall be final.

You are still given a right to a fair trial where "due process of law" is observed.

By bullying drivers to remove tint at the side of the road, the authorities are breaching the due process of law, obstructing justice, abusing authority and stripping the population of their fundamental rights of being innocent until proven guilty and their right to a fair trial.

Breaching what exactly? And abusing what legislation? And what "fundamental rights" are being violated here?

23(d) no motor vehicle the windscreen or any other win­dow of which is fitted with glass so tinted, treated or darkened as to obscure the view of the inside of the vehicle from the outside;

shall be used upon any road

End of story. We are all subjected to the law and will be persecuted by such if in violation.

[AbstractPoetic]

PART IV

Now if the Police force you to remove your tint at the side of the road they are overstepping their authority under the law and are subject to legal sanctions. In other words you can sue them. If the Licensing Officers force you to remove your tint at the side of the road they too are overstepping their authority under the law and are subject to legal sanctions as well.

Please refer to Part II of my argument where "Licensing Authority" (Transport Comissioner) and the Commissioner of Police, under the regulations of Minister Imbert, can appoint person(s) within their jurisdiction to enforce the law as stated in the Act.

And again, I quote:

Part I, Section 4(2)

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, any reference to an Assistant Transport Commissioner, Automotive Licensing Officer, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Motor Vehicles Officer and Motor Vehicles Supervisor is a reference to a Transport Officer and the functions or powers specified in relation to such Officer shall be performed by a Transport Officer

Moreover,

Part I, Section 4(3)

Transport Officers shall be under the direction of the Transport Commissioner who may assign such officers as may be necessary to such localities and to perform such duties as he directs for the purposes of the Act.

[MG Man]

gees
is ah good ting Sanctifier not n dis ched

[AbstractPoetic]

RESOLVE

While it is argued that the removal of tint under the enforcement of local authority is an injustice and is being illegally allowed, the provisions under CHAPTER 48:50 MOTOR VEHICLES AND ROAD TRAFFIC ACT shows that there are no such violations of the law in the removal of "borderline" tint or illegal tint.

The provisions under Chapter 48:50 allows for the ACT in approaching your car for inspection and deeming your tint as illegal, as legal. Misinterpretation, however, may lie in the officer's interpretation of what is deemed as obscure. In such an instance, you, the citizen, have the right to appeal such decision in revoking your registration.

The OP's argument was initially based on the officer enforcing the law based on what he deemed a misinterpretation of the law. However, each officer, as is the case for each vehicle, is a separate case in and of itself. They have not, however, misinterpreted the law in their actions, as their actions are still legally allowed and protected by the Act.

Lastly, the archaic and outdated legislation referenced and quoted by the OP is inapplicable and has no bearings as we speak. Instead of researching the suggestions made by others in perusing his legal jargon, he ignored such pleas and posted his argument which still makes reference to what is known in the legal world as "bad law".

It is my hope that the OP will revise his argument to reflect the times, and, in so doing, perhaps present a solid enough argument in challenging the authorities for what he deems as a violation, breach of civil rights and misinterpretation in the applicability of said legislation.

[MG Man]

[TriniVdub]

AP *YAWN* yuh aint impressing anybody so pls

[AbstractPoetic]

AP *YAWN* yuh aint impressing anybody so pls

Wasn't trying to.

All I did was use the same rules of law referenced by Nebert, inclusive of amendments, to argue differently.

[AbstractPoetic]

gees
is ah good ting Sanctifier not n dis ched

Who that be?