New RPM Act Can Stop the EPA from Damaging Motorsports

fraso · FORT ERIE, ONT

SVAO - Specialty Vehicle Association of Ontario

Petebil · ONTARIO

When you say "south of the border", I assume you mean California. I know of no other states that have car enthusiast up against a wall as much as us in Ontario. When I mention the BS we have to go through to someone in the States, they can't believe it. Insurance companies, IMO, pose more of a risk to our hobby that the Government. I think it's a losing battle.

Ground Pounder · Senior Member

Below was entered into our Supreme COURT of Canada court case in Oshawa ONT Cana-Duh The corporate body..The attorney general sealed such case.[Like it or not <It's the Truth]{CAN you handle such?]

Automobiles classified as vehicles
"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).
"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).

"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles,

whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers

Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).

"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In re
Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.

"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites

Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.

"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile

"Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that is

usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v

Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514.

"All household goods owned by the user there of and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person

entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2

CONCLUSION
Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)? No.
This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial). While the presumption of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use.

Who Work,s for you? Who works for who>>>?

Time to wake THE F@@K UP Folk's

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Saturday 18th of February 2017 10:00:32 PM

Petebil · ONTARIO

and here we go again!🙄

Ground Pounder · Senior Member

Petebil wrote:
and here we go again!🙄

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA = SHEEP...

Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is of no force or effect. Statutes which conflict with the Constitution are invalid in the most radical sense; they do not become law. In Strayer, The Canadian Constitution and the Courts (3d ed., 1988) the author states at p. 32:

ow we need look no further than s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for the principle of supremacy of the Constitution [...] and for the intended consequence of supremacy; that is, the invalidity of inconsistent laws.

In R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613 at 638, the Supreme Court of Canada, speaking through Le Dain J. stated:

[...] the Charter must be regarded, because of its constitutional character, as a new affirmation of rights and freedoms and of judicial power and responsibility in relation to their protection. This results from s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which removes any possible doubt or uncertainty as to the general effect which the Charter is to have by providing that it is part of the supreme law of Canada and that any law that is inconsistent with its provisions is to the extent of such inconsistency of no force and effect.

The first arm of section 52 - constitutional supremacy - is not a phenomenon unique to Canada. In the United States, Chief Justice Marshall stated this principle in Marbury v. Madison (1803), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch 137):

[T]he people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness [and this] is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. [...]

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Now ask yourselves ? How free is It?

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Saturday 18th of February 2017 09:26:07 PM

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Saturday 18th of February 2017 09:28:42 PM

fraso · FORT ERIE, ONT

I see we have some strong opinions here.

I just wanted to make everyone aware of an organization here in Ontario that has been advocating on behalf of the specialty vehicle community since 1994. It was formed in response to the new Drive Clean program being considered back then. One of SVAO's first accomplishments was getting the rolling 20 year exemption when the program started.

-- Edited by fraso on Saturday 18th of February 2017 10:45:11 PM

Ground Pounder · Senior Member

fraso wrote:
I see we have some strong opinions here.

I just wanted to make everyone aware of an organization here in Ontario that has been advocating on behalf of the specialty vehicle community since 1994. It was formed in response to the new Drive Clean program being considered back then. One of SVAO's first accomplishments was getting the rolling 20 year exemption when the program started.

-- Edited by fraso on Saturday 18th of February 2017 10:45:11 PM

First Thank you for the info...

Second Case law is not opinion!! It is truth established By Facts Then tried tested in a court of law.

Standing as Truth based off of facts.

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Sunday 19th of February 2017 10:17:04 AM

Ground Pounder · Senior Member

Happening on the south side of north America.

www.motorstate.com/EPA.htm

www.motorstate.com/epawithdrawl.htm

www.epa.gov/moves

more brain washings/Hence Global warming a Hoax

www.epa.gov/air-pollution-transportation

speedtalk.com/forum/viewforum.php

tceq.state.tx.us/airquality/mobilesource/vetech/tampering.html

www.onedirt.com/news/epa-poses-regulations-that-threaten-racing/

Heres some cases that have gone on since the 90's..

cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/index.cfm

Rpm and the Epa

New RPM Act Can Stop the EPA from Damaging Motorsports

http://www.dragracingscene.com/news/sema-rpmact/

EPA Abandons Proposal to Ban Converting Street Cars for Racing

http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a28850/epa-abandons-proposal-to-ban-converting-street-cars-for-racing/

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Sunday 19th of February 2017 12:12:39 PM