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

[bluesteel29]

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

[MISHI]

AP *YAWN* yuh aint impressing anybody so pls

It's not about impressing,

There are good points made there. At the end of the day, the fight for those who have been unfairly treated will be ba better one.

It's better for the comments to be made where amendments and reviews can be further done to improve the argument.

Information is power and the more we get whether by discussion or otherwise is only beneficial in the end.


I am on no level to make any detailed addition to this thread as Mr. G and AP have... not one for being involved in big discussions, but the points on both sides are there to be read and analyzed.

My whole take on the matter is that you should get a camera and use an object aound the vehicle (i.e another car, sign etc)

Stand the distance assumably an officer will stand to deem your car illegaly tinted and take a series of photos... front, sides, rear. If you can make these out clearly enough in the pictures by seeing through, then obviously you can see inside.

And that can be the basis of an argument if they continue...

probably not relevant for this discussion but I wanted to feel important.

well I gone from here.

[Wizard]

the number of vip vehicles i see running around with blacked out tint is ridiculous

one law for all

pity those without air conditioning

[bunny]

OK,I've read most of the posts here. Mr.Gear, there is merit in what you say,but at the end of the day try convincing your average uneducated cop or lic.officer to understand any of those arguements while at the side of the road. It just isnt worth the hastle. Take off the tint, you could always pay to have it reinstalled and it will cost you less than the $1000. fine...plus the time and hassle of attending court,where your lawyer will have to try his best to convince a magistrate [who always has a hectic case load and is in a hurry to get rid of you] .A magistrate will not want to go there and would probably rule against you,so that a judge can interpret the law. Even then ,seeing there are faults in the law you may end up in the privy council. It just aint worth it for the average citizen. Dont get me wrong, I see where you'rre coming from,but to waste time arguing with idiots especially in this sweet country of ours where govt ministers can bend the laws or brush them aside because in their view they have done nothing wrong, eg the current matter with the finance minister[and the law is pretty clear in this instant] There is questionable justice in this country..Proceed at your own risk,time, headaches and expense!

[horsepwrjunki]

i have to agree with bunny.( bunny?? whey... n/m) on that as much as i agree with nebert.. Pat. darling yuh argument is good and apreciated but i seems ur using somethign that i lacking big time in our administration an judicial system .. that seems to be ur brain..

as for if sanctifier was here.. haha.. ad EVO STIk and it would be a party...

[Mr Gear]

Bunny, I hear you about arguing with fools but I have done it several times before and come out on top - in court. Lots of headache its true but until we stand up for our rights we would be counted as second class citizens.

I intend to live here and take up my first class position - if you know what I mean.

[AbstractPoetic]

Bunny, I hear you about arguing with fools but I have done it several times before and come out on top - in court. Lots of headache its true but until we stand up for our rights we would be counted as second class citizens.

I intend to live here and take up my first class position - if you know what I mean.

Good for you, but you can only "come out on top" and "stand up for your rights" if you are fully informed in all aspects of the law, NOT just what you choose to see.

I hope my contributions made in this thread provides impetus to your refute.

[mitsubishi]

Well.. I guess today is the day.. right? Isn't today Mr Gear said that he was going to do his thing? Well man... I'm supporting you all the way and I do hope that your drive to tackle this issue in a manner that can be worth the effort is fruitful. You seem to be preparing properly so i hope that you don't let down in the fight. You don't seem like one to back out or waver in your stance. GOOD LUCK Mr Gear. Keep us updated.

[Mr Gear]

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.

The archaic and outdated legislation that you speak about needs to be fully understood so as to inform the readers why the change in the legislation has given the law enforcers their new zest to go out and frustrate people. If you slow down and re read my post you will see that I stated that the old so called bad laws were abolished in a recent amendment. I said that and made it clear so there is no need for me to revise my argument to reflect the times.

The misinterpretation of the law that you speak about is not the misinterpretation of the law that I am speaking about. I have never argued about the officer's view of what is obscure or not. My reference to misinterpretation of the law is the Officer's position that they can force you to remove your tint right there on the spot or cancel your registration right there on the spot. They do not have that power and they are misinterpreting the law if they feel that they have that power.

In my youth I too was quite hasty and have on many occassions shot off my mouth rather quickly before fully understanding what the full picture was. Perhaps this near sightedness may have befallen you in your responses above. But take comfort in the fact that with experience, this can be cured.

Not too long ago I came up with a cure for virginity. - Thats a joke AP

[AbstractPoetic]

We are in fact on the same page as I did present my rebuttal in supporting their actions to remove tint on the road itself. Clearly, you have chosen to ignore what is said in the law and what I have referenced in this thread. It is not near sightedness. They have the power to do what you are refuting. Point blank.

[rodfarva]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but,

Mr Gear argues that It is not legal for Licensing Officials to force motorists to remove tint from their vehicle that is perceived to be of an illegal grade.

Mr Gear, further states that: The Licensing Official may issue a ticket in the amount of <=$1000.00 if said Official finds that the Motor Vehicle in question is outfitted with tint that violates the boundaries set in the MVRA.


Mr Gear explains further that said Motorist is then presented with his/her own set of options.
1. Motorist may pay the Fine outlined in the ticket and by doing so, admits that his vehicle is illegally tinted, thus he/she is now obligated to have the vehicle's tint removed (or replaced with a more suitable grade)
2. Motorist may attend Court, in order to defend his motor vehicle's tint.

Finally, It is my understanding that a motor vehicle can not be de-registered on the spot.

Though I still believe that this will only help those with borderline tint schemes on their vehicles. Those of us who have moderately to heavily tinted vehicles will ultimately be forced to have the tint removed.

Im about halfway through reading AbstractPoetic's rebuttal...

[16 cycles]

^ waiting for translation...thanks

[AbstractPoetic]

No. You will still have to pay the fine even if you won your case. Decision by the License Authority to revoke your registration can only be challenged by the Board. If you win, your registration stands. Either way, you will still have to pay the fine.

[rodfarva]

^^ noted AP

thx

16 cycles,

[16 cycles]

thanks AP

[Computerman]

My reference to misinterpretation of the law is the Officer's position that they can force you to remove your tint right there on the spot or cancel your registration right there on the spot. They do not have that power and they are misinterpreting the law if they feel that they have that power.

Correct.
However, it was my understanding that they were 'asking' motorists to remove the tint, not ordering. If you choose not to comply they can impound the vehicle pending de-registration procedures. But the vehicle must be kept at secured locations approved for same by licensing authority, all at the risk and cost of the owner of the vehicle.
The only reason for not removing your tint 'on spot' when requested is if you believe your tint is not illegal. If this is the case then you have three cases to 'fight'. Your fine, your de-registration and you also have to file a complaint against the officer(s) who issued the fine and began the de-registration proceedings. The reason being is that the officer is unfit for duty due to being visually impaired.

[bunny]

I KNOW BOUT THESE THINGS FROM EXPERIENCE..When i was younger a lic officer told me to remove 6 lights on top of my jeep. I was quick to show him that the lights were not even connected..N.B. this is at 11.00 am in front of lic office.I then get 'ordered' to drive over the pit for 'an inspection' . I comply. The lic officer then approaches me with a razor blade in one hand and a soccet set in the other and 'orders ' me to remove my lights and tint' . I told him remove himself. The man flew into a rage. I then told him 'hear what ,keep the jeep' ! while the jeep was still over the pit i locked it up and told him goodbye and he could leave whatever tickets he choose to write on the windscreen. I THEN PROCEEDED TO WALK OFF. Next thin you know he grabs me from behind and out of reflex action he naerly collect a cuff to face. By this time is big scene in lic office. The transport commisioner himself had to come and manners his rougue officer while I watch him and laugh. They then beg me to move my vehicle off the pit . I REFUSE .I tell them 'LATER ! I GONE! NEXT THING YOU KNOW,the T/port comm. telling me how I embarrassing them,and if I could please move the vehicle. I say under 1 condition. ie. if that jackass over there writes me the tickets so i could deal with him in court. He gets ordered to write the tickets. case went on for 4 years and the jackass never turned up once till the matter was finally dismissed..While i was sure to win the case with the lights, it certainly wasnt worth the time or effort to attend court so many times....so now if the stop me i just keep quiet and try to be civil. Once they start to write ticket,,is real pressure and old talk fuh dem...would i do it again ,,,,well depends..........

[Computerman]

While i was sure to win the case with the lights, it certainly wasnt worth the time or effort to attend court so many times....

Therein lies the problem. How many of us are willing to sacrifice the time, effort and money to fight injustice?
One of our senior managers was pulled aside and issued a ticket for his stock 'fog' lights that came factory installed on the company SUV. The ticket was passed on to our corporate attorneys who will deal with the matter.

[roctt]

http://forums.trinituner.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=239627


Mr Gear 1 - AP 0

[Freelander]

what i gather is that police officers are there to enforce the law, and not pass judgment.

so the act of stripping tint and de registration on the spot should not be carried out. the driver should be allowed to prove his case in front of a judge.

[ray d saint]

what i gather is that police officers are there to enforce the law, and not pass judgment.

so the act of stripping tint and de registration on the spot should not be carried out. the driver should be allowed to prove his case in front of a judge.

^^very important words to note!

[eekipoo]

Question: You all keep saying that we have the option not to remove out tint if is legal. But if the Police Officer decides that it is illegal "for whatever reason" wont they impound you car until they get a Licensing officer to say if it is or not. If this is the case then you will be without a vehicle for how ever long this takes...am i correct here??

[Computerman]

Question: You all keep saying that we have the option not to remove out tint if is legal. But if the Police Officer decides that it is illegal "for whatever reason" wont they impound you car until they get a Licensing officer to say if it is or not. If this is the case then you will be without a vehicle for how ever long this takes...am i correct here??

Yes. That is why you will have to file a complaint against the officer to get 'justice'.

[Mr Gear]

No. You will still have to pay the fine even if you won your case. Decision by the License Authority to revoke your registration can only be challenged by the Board. If you win, your registration stands. Either way, you will still have to pay the fine.

No AP, if you win at the Transport Board the traffic ticket case will be dismissed because of a ruling obtained from the country's authority on vehicles, "Licensing Authority."

Has anyone seen page 2 of Today's Express. Attorney Dana Seetahal has agreed with me that the authoriities do not have the power to force you to remove the tint at the side of the road.

[rodfarva]

No. You will still have to pay the fine even if you won your case. Decision by the License Authority to revoke your registration can only be challenged by the Board. If you win, your registration stands. Either way, you will still have to pay the fine.

No AP, if you win at the Transport Board the traffic ticket case will be dismissed because of a ruling obtained from the country's authority on vehicles, "Licensing Authority."

Has anyone seen page 2 of Today's Express. Attorney Dana Seetahal has agreed with me that the authoriities do not have the power to force you to remove the tint at the side of the road.

I thought so..... logically it makes sense

[Mr Gear]

Computerman, I'm not sure that they have the power to impound your vehicle but they threaten you with that for you to consider the inconvenience of it all. They have the wreckers there to intimidate the public.

It is my honest belief they no one have the power to impound your car for a tint violation because the Section 91 od the MV & RTA details the penalty as a fine of up to $1,000.00 or six months imprisonment. There is no impound penalty.

Furthermore I believe that on a first offence the Police will ticket you for $250.00 and if you don't pay and lose in court, the Magistrate will fine you $500.00. On second offence the Police will fine you $500.00 if he knows your case history and if you lose the magistrage will fine you $1,000.00. Failure to pay either fine can result in imprisonment.

[Mr Gear]

I can't believe that only AP ventured to give an opposing view.

AP, although we may disagree on everything I must give to credit for sticking your neck out and trading blows with me.

The TC and CoP are going on the defensive now. We will have to wait and see if they continue their actions because I can tell you that the approach that will be taken is to file suit against the state and the Officer(s) in their personal capacity. When Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj was in office he amended the law so that persons can sue Police Officers in their personal capacity and go after their assets directly as well as seek compensation from the state. So the Police can't stand in uniform and do wrong then hide behind the state's skirt.

So if you're a police office or Licensing Officer for that matter and you attempt to breach the law and over step your boundry you could be facing the loss of your personal assets.

Wanna risk that for some tint ?

[AbstractPoetic]

Nebert, my pleasure. For now I continue my research and wait to see the developments. I am sure they would refute Seetahal's argument which still remains a matter of opinion. And in other news, I would like to follow up with you in regards to your Concierge business as a potential client. Keep us updated.

[pugboy]

was that law ever properly proclaimed ?
he did many laws and many yet to be proclaimed
ie made concrete law

When Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj was in office he amended the law so that persons can sue Police Officers in their personal capacity and go after their assets directly as well as seek compensation from the state. So the Police can't stand in uniform and do wrong then hide behind the state's skirt.

So if you're a police office or Licensing Officer for that matter and you attempt to breach the law and over step your boundry you could be facing the loss of your personal assets.

Wanna risk that for some tint ?

[AbstractPoetic]

was that law ever properly proclaimed ?
he did many laws and many yet to be proclaimed
ie made concrete law

When Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj was in office he amended the law so that persons can sue Police Officers in their personal capacity and go after their assets directly as well as seek compensation from the state. So the Police can't stand in uniform and do wrong then hide behind the state's skirt.

So if you're a police office or Licensing Officer for that matter and you attempt to breach the law and over step your boundry you could be facing the loss of your personal assets.

Wanna risk that for some tint ?

It still stands, but in most instances, victims were assaulted, man-handled or wrongfully arrested by police.

Here's an example:

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl ... =161417326