Wat, so your argument was that it's not a pickup truck because you don't carry property in it very often? I would have found against you on a jury. Interpreting 29-A §101 88 to mean that the state has a burden to prove that you carry property in it is ridiculous.

"primarily used", by whom? One in general?

You should have made a due process argument on grounds of vagueness.

I did bring up primary use. The state had to prove my primary use of my machine. It did not matter.

Blacks legal dictionary 5th edition.-- Primary: First; principal; chief; leading. First in order of time, or development, or intention.


WORDS AND PHRASES-VOLUME 33B

PRIMARILY USED ---C.A.1(R.L) 2000. Within statute defining proscribed doctunent-making implement as any implement or impression primarily used for making an identification document or false identification document, “primarily used” refers defendants primary use of the item in question, not its general usage by the public. 13 U.S.C.A. § 102S(a}[5), (d](1),_. U.S. v. Cabrera, 208 F.3d 309.—False Pers 2.


PRIMARY USE---Ind.App.4Dist. 1990. Proposed skeet range that was to be added to dwelling house and outbuildings that would be used for recreational purposes on weekends qualified as “accessory use rather than “primary use," proposed skeet range was only incident of recreational purpose planned for house that was subordinate in extent, area, and purpose to primary use of house for recreational purposes.
Boone County Area Plan Corn'n v. Kennedy, 560 N.E.2d 692, transfer denied.—Zoning 302. .


Va. 1945. In pedestrian’s action for injuries sustained when he was stuck by automobile, instruction that roadblocks of highways are primarily intended for vehicular traffic was not error, since “primary use” does not mean “sole use".-—Herbert v. Stephenson, 35 S.E.2d 753, 184 Va. 457.-Autos 246 (4).
Ohio 1994.

When items exemption depends on its use, its primary use is criterion; “primary use" is qualitative consideration, not quantitative one.--AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Limbach, 641 N.B.2d 177, 71 Ohio St.3d 11, 1994-Ohio-90. Tax 2399. Pa. 1955.

Use of leased premises one block from paint store operated by lessor solely for the purpose of advertising such store by means of billboard erected on leased premises, was a “primary use” and not an “accessory use" within provision of city zoning ordinance permitting enumerated and accessory uses within any particular zone.—Silver v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 112 A.2d 84, 381 Pa. 41.—Z.oning 302.


PRIMARY USE TEST
Ala.Civ.App. 1996. State law, and not Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, determines whether product is consumer good or equipment, and test used is "primary use test” if good is used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household business, good is "consumer good,” and Act applies, while if good is used or bought for use primarily in business, ii is “equipment,” and Act is not applicable. Maguuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, § 101 et seq., 15 U.S.C.A. § 2301 et seq.; Code 1975,§ '7—9-109 (1, 2).—Weaver v. Dan Jones Ford, Inc.

(side note: If my machine is bought for personal use it is consumer goods and not a motor vehicle.)

Your arguments are idiotic. I have heard quite a few Sovereign Citizen types make the kinds of arguments that you make, and then throw their arms up in anger when judges and juries rightly rule against them. I can assure you that if your case was in front of a jury, you would have lost just the same.

Pro tip: The relevant law when it comes to Maine's registration requirements is in Maine's registration statutes, to which you have already cited. Alaska law when it comes to "consumer goods" is not relevant law in this case.

Here is the relevant law:

(1) 91. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means a device for conveyance of persons or property on a way. "Vehicle" does not include conveyances propelled or drawn by human power or used exclusively on railroad tracks or snowmobiles as defined in Title 12, section 13001 or an electric personal assistive mobility device. http://legislature.maine.gov/statute...9-Asec101.html

(2) 1-A. Residents required to register. An owner of a vehicle who becomes a resident of this State shall register that vehicle in this State within 30 days of establishing residency. A person who operates or allows a vehicle that is not registered in accordance with this subsection to remain on a public way commits: http://legislature.maine.gov/statute...9-Asec351.html

The fact that you think you don't have to register your vehicle because it is a pickup truck is ridiculous. I am glad you lost, deadbeat.

KIMBALL v. NEW ENGLAND GUARANTY INS. CO., 642 A.2d 1347 (1994) - vehicle intended solely for plowing (not carrying property) is registerable as a "pickup truck" for insurance purposes, according to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.


Even setting aside the problem that none of your citations are from the relevant jurisdiction, the only one that actually makes the argument that Use applies to the specific defendant is taken from a completely different context - identity fraud, where the distinction does not obviate the legislative intent.

There was no sovereign citizen argument. The question is: Given these facts do these statutes apply?

Luria v. United States, 231 US 9 - Supreme Court 1913; " A paragraph in a statute which is plain and unambiguous must be accepted as it reads."...“That which is contrary to the plain implication of a statute is unlawful, for what is clearly implied is as much a part of a law as that which is expressed.”

Burkitt, Inc. v. CHAMPION RD. MACHINERY, 763 A. 2d 106 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2000; [B]"[I]f the meaning of the statute is clear on its face, then we need not look beyond the words themselves

Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511 - Supreme Court 1993
"Respondents do not dispute the plain meaning of this text. Rather, they argue that when §525 is read in the context of the entire statute, it implicitly... They make three points in support of this argument: that the history of the Act reveals an intent...; that other provisions of the Act are expressly conditioned on a showing of prejudice; and that a literal interpretation produces illogical and absurd results. Neither separately nor in combination do these points justify a departure from the unambiguous statutory text." The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine is reversed.

Justice Scalia, concurring: The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself . . . ." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added).


351 (6) Improper registration. "not properly registered" means the vehicle is either registered in a manner that is not reflective of its current actual use or as a type of vehicle that it is not as a matter of law, including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle registered as an antique auto when the vehicle is not an antique auto as defined in section 101, subsection 3. (shortened below)

351 (6) "not properly registered" means the vehicle...is...registered...as a type of vehicle that it is not as a matter of law...as defined in section 101.

101 (88) Truck. "Truck" means a motor vehicle designed and used primarily to carry property.

Hunt v. Drielick, 852 NW 2d 562 - Mich: Supreme Court 2014; If the parties had intended...whether property was actually attached...there would have been no need to include the phrase “carry property".

United States v. Harriss, 347 US 612 - Supreme Court 1954; All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids…The question therefore is not what the information charges nor what the proof might be. It is whether the statute itself is sufficiently narrow and precise as to give fair warning.

What is idiotic about saying my machine is not a truck as defined by statute when it is not used primarily to carry property? I am following US Supreme Court precedent.
What is idiotic about saying the statute requiring registration does not apply when registering would require violating statutes?

Do you even know what words and phrases is? Those legal definitions were provided by the state law library. W&P is a huge collection of court case citations similar to Black's law dictionary that takes up a whole wall instead of a book. The definitions inside W&P should be accepted by every court in the country. Westlaw publishes W&P to let the legal community know what words mean in law.

When there are multiple possible interpretations, that's when legislative intent comes to bear. The statute could be read to mean a car which is generally primarily used to carry property, regardless of whether you personally are using it that way.

Looking at it again, the "improper registration" law says:

which would be a win for you, except it continues to read:

which creates a dichotomy of, on the one hand, what you are actually doing with it, and on the other, what it counts as legally



Further, whether the vehicle is a "pickup truck" is a question of law that does not reach the jury/bench trial decision because juries never answer questions of law, only of fact.

And yet anyone who's watched/read the hilarious SC arguments knew that

was seconds away from a reference.

Might I suggest that when the legal argument you got from google fails that you blame the website you got it from and not the court.

It is idiotic because you are seriously trying to get out of registering your vehicle because you think it isn't a pickup truck. The registration statute is plain on its face; you don't have to cite to unrelated law in a different state.

I already cited the relevant law here. You have a vehicle. The law says you have to register a vehicle if you meet the residency requirement. You are wrong and your posts are incoherent. Case closed.

Burkitt, Inc. v. CHAMPION RD. MACHINERY, 763 A. 2d 106 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2000. 29-A M.R.S.A. § 101(91) Thus, the distinguishing characteristic of a "vehicle" is its use in conveying people or property.


Black's Law Dictionary 402 (4th ed. 1968) CONVEY. Convey relates properly to the disposition of real property, not to personal. Dickerman v. Abrahams, 21 Barb., N.Y., 551, 561. CONVEY. To pass or transmit the title to property from one to another; to transfer property or the title to property by deed or instrument under seal. Used popularly in sense of "assign," "sale," or "transfer."

Blaney v. Inhabitants of Town of Shapleigh, 455 A. 2d 1381 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1983
When a statute imposing or enforcing a tax or other burden on the citizen is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the court will interpret the statute in a light most favorable to the citizen.

Vehicle registration imposes an excise tax and other burdens on the people of Maine. The statutes must be interpreted in my favor.

Hunt v. Drielick, 852 NW 2d 562 - Mich: Supreme Court 2014; Further, "use" is defined as "`to employ for some purpose; put into service...defining "employ" as "[t]o engage in the services of; to put to work".


Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 258 US 338 - Supreme Court 1922
“To say that the legislature simply was establishing the situation as both parties knew from the beginning it ought to be would be putting something of a gloss upon the facts. We must assume that the plaintiff went through the canal relying upon its legal rights and it is not to be deprived of them because the Legislature forgot”


United States v. Goldenberg, 168 US 95 - Supreme Court 1897
“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar.

No mere omission ... which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justif[ies] any judicial addition to the language of the statute""

Idaho v. Wright, 497 US 805 - Supreme Court 1990; The word `and' is conjunctive. . . . The Legislature would have used the word `or' had it intended the disjunctive.


To be a registerable as a truck it has to be designed AND used primarily to carry property.

State v. Chittim, 775 A. 2d 381 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2001
"The language of Title 29-A, sections 103 and 2104, provides that a violation of section 2104 constitutes a traffic infraction subjecting the violator to the imposition of a fine. Accordingly, the statute is penal, and we construe penal statutes strictly."

United States v. Dotterweich, 320 US 277 - Supreme Court 1943; probability is not a guide which a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take." United States v. Wiltberger, supra at 105.

LoL. Troll accounts are getting more elaborate all the time around here. Please post in the flat earth thread. You'll fit right in.

If you just focused on the Blanely case instead of going all over the board you may have prevailed pretrial.

But it's still irrelevant to the question of jury/bench.

This is 100% the kind of guy that will come to my ****ing office yelling about how he's got a civil rights case against the county government due to their unjust application of the motor vehicle code.

Country,

Don't worry, you can win on appeal as long as you made sure to announce that you were not being bound by any covenants written or unwritten before you stepped into the well.

You did do this, right?

If I had a nickel for every time I cited to Blacks Law Dictionary in a legal filing over an 11 year career.... I would have no nickels.

I am pretty sure that 98% of sales of Black's Law Dictionary comes from gullible law students buying it on their first day. The other two percent comes from Country_Hick.

Tell me how you feel about the blue book.

Blue Book is useful every once in a while.

If you do federal appellate work I guess? I haven't opened that since law school either.

No, but I did open it when citing some non-case law sources a couple times.

I guess Maine's Justices are gullible enough to not only buy but also to quote Black's Law in their opinions.

Are you suggesting that Maine's highest Court is gullible because they use this resource as shown below?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,20

Mers v. Saunders, 2 A. 3d 289 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2010

[¶ 10] The only rights conveyed to MERS in either the Saunderses' mortgage or the corresponding promissory note are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds. This comports with the limited role of a nominee. A nominee is a "person designated to act in place of another, usu[ally] in a very limited way," or a "party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others." Black's Law Dictionary 1149 (9th ed.2009);

This detail was funny at first but it's sort of worn out its welcome.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Country - you need distinguish "persuasive" from "binding" authority

Its too much unchecked power for judges. I'd be fine with juries deciding guilt/innocence and a panel of experts deciding punishment.