re: I'm taking legal action against the Office of Motor Vehicles

quote:

---

At this point, I'm actually starting to doubt that. I've got 25 pages of people saying "You're wrong", "You're an idiot" and folks that either appear to or claiming to practice law telling me that the judge is going to toss this. They were ALL wrong. So he DOES have to have a Tax ID to file taxes bit I'm starting to doubt that it HAS to be a SS#. M

---

Your entire argument was that he isn’t getting a SSN and thus, won’t have to pay taxes

You’re wrong and an idiot

quote:

---

Holding back a right or privilege from someone unless they do something not required by law is harm. What if you went to the DMV and before you could get a license they made you give 20 bucks to the their office party fund. It's just 20 bucks, right? Or would you have a problem with it?

---

You still won’t answer what the harm was. You just keep describing what they were doing. You sought relief from the courts - meaning there was harm done.

The harm done was self-inflicted.

quote:

---

Your entire argument was that he isn’t getting a SSN and thus, won’t have to pay taxes

---

But then later it turned to not wanting the DMW to have the number because of the security breaches.

Dude literally went to court to prove that his odd way of making his kid’s life complicated could continue.

quote:

---

You still won’t answer what the harm was. You just keep describing what they were doing. You sought relief from the courts - meaning there was harm done.

The harm done was self-inflicted.

---

I'm not sure if you are trolling or your capacity to understand this is just that limited.

There is ZERO question as to whether there was harm or not. There was, a judge passed a ruling on this.

Using your logic and my question you didn't answer...

You walk into the DMV to get a license. They say "we are collecting for the DMV office party. We require you to donate 20 dollars to the office party fund or we aren't issuing you a license".

Per YOUR definition, they are causing no harm by requiring an unlawful requirement and if any harm was caused, it was self-inflicted because you chose to refrain from paying 20 dollars to the DMV office party fund.

Does that make any sense?

If you don't understand, I could maybe suggest some reading. Look into "poll tax" case law. I think that would be pretty similar.

I will say though, after your latest line of questioning, I no longer wonder why there were 25 pages of folks that just didn't understand this.

quote:

---

Well, it's as if the world conspires to plop these things at my feet. The latest entity to try to somehow prove a point at the expense of someone minding their own business (me), is our lovable Dept of Motor Vehicles.

---

The world didn’t plop this at your feet; you plopped it at your own feet.

quote:

---

There is ZERO question as to whether there was harm or not. There was, a judge passed a ruling on this.

---

Then why won’t you tell us exactly what the harm was? It seems hard for you to articulate it.

quote:

---

You walk into the DMV to get a license. They say "we are collecting for the DMV office party. We require you to donate 20 dollars to the office party fund or we aren't issuing you a license".

---

Your example is foolish and you know it is. The OMV was requiring a piece of information that is reasonably relevant to the issuance of a state-issued identification card. While the state may have erred in its application of that statute or requirement, it certainly has a reasonable justification for validating one’s identity before issuing a government document.

Collecting a party fund fee is in no way similar and no reasonable inference could be made that it is justifiable. I didn’t answer it before because it is a terrible analogy. This is an idiotic leap and it’s disturbing that you think I’m the troll here.

The situation that you created (yes, you created it) caused the harm.

I both simultaneously hope the state appeals and makes this drag out longer AND wish you’d stop wasting tax resources on petty stuff like your personal ideology.

Again, your capacity to understand this is just not what you think it is.

Per State Law a Writ of Mandamus is issued when...

A writ of mandamus may be issued in all cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice; provided, however, that no court shall issue or cause to be issued a writ of mandamus to compel the expenditure of state funds by any state department, board or agency, or any officer, administrator or head thereof, or any officer of the state of Louisiana, in any suit or action involving the expenditure of public funds under any statute or law of this state, when the director of such department, board or agency, or the governor shall certify that the expenditure of such funds would have the effect of creating a deficit in the funds of said agency or be in violation of the requirements placed upon the expenditure of such funds by the legislature.

The "injustice" was failing to issue my son a TIP card in violation of state law. That was the harm.

quote:

---

Your example is foolish and you know it is. The OMV was requiring a piece of information that is reasonably relevant to the issuance of a state-issued identification card. 

---

The piece of information they required, they were specifically prohibited from requiring by both state and federal law. This isn't even in question. It's literally written into the law.

I guess I'm just flabbergasted by your ignorance. You are still insisting I don't understand the law when I have a court judgement in hand that is signed by a judge. A judge, you know the folks that are there to decide matters of law? That guy agreed with my interpretation of the law.

That means my understanding of the law is consistent with the actual meaning of the law. That also means that your understanding of the law is incorrect.

I'm not sure what else to tell you to help you understand.

Every single post I read from you I just feel worse and worse for your poor son

I am assuming not even viagra or an implant works?

Because this is he kind of thing a torally impotent person would do to feign manhood..

If you’re a U.S. citizen, you’re generally expected to have an SSN. Parents usually apply for one for their kids at birth, since it’s needed for things like claiming dependents on taxes or opening bank accounts for them. If you’re working in the U.S., whether as a citizen or a legal resident, you’ll need an SSN to report income to the IRS. Employers won’t hire you without one, except in rare cases where you’re paid as a contractor, and even then, tax forms like a W-9 still ask for it.

I know you are hanging your hat on the Privacy Act of 1974 but you need to read what has happened in the courts in this specific area.

States can legally require an SSN for a driver’s license because it’s tied to identity verification and federal/state coordination (e.g., checking for suspended licenses or legal obligations). Courts have generally upheld this, viewing SSNs as a reasonable administrative requirement.

There are a thousand other ways you can be tracked if THEY are out to get you. All you are doing is being annoying and impotent,

I pray to any god listening that a judge hits you with court costs.

quote:

---

Maybe take the time and read the OP? Tracking is not why he did this.

---

He did not say it was but he seems like a tinfoil hat guy who would worry about such.