Started By
Message

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

Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:01 am to
Posted by StTiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2008
3109 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:01 am to
I linked internal revenue code (federal law), the IRS website where the first few lines say a SSN number is required, and the constitution (highest law in the land) that authorizes the IRS

Cut and dry. SSN required

And he just said "I'll look into it"

Y'all are wasting your time

Also, it's not just the SS tax, but he's "setting up his son for the future" basically claiming he won't have to work a day in his life, so either you have a room full of cash with billions he couldn't spend in one lifetime or you have bank and investment accounts. Which will earn interest and dividends. Which will have capital gains

All taxable

If he decides to sell drugs, taxable

Income from all sources derived
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12169 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:03 am to
Your best argument is that the civil code defines "driver's license" pretty broadly:

"License" or "driver's license" means any license, which shall include a license that complies with the standards of REAL ID as provided for in R.S. 32:410(E), secured from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in accordance with this Chapter to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of this state.

If a TIP or learner's license (not clear which you are applying for) allows him to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of Louisiana, it is arguably included in the statute regarding SSNs.

If it's a TIP, they still might argue that a "permit" is not a "license," and that the two different terms are used for a reason.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:06 am
Posted by eitek1
Member since Jun 2011
2757 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:06 am to
quote:

Your understanding of the law is bad. I haven’t researched the issue, but your amateur attempts at legal reasoning and logic are making me less and less confident in your chances here


Please help me out then. I’m being serious.

If the social security section of 32:409.1 ONLY applies to alien individuals AND it’s the only section of title 32 that speaks about social security numbers in relation to licenses then where is the requirement?

Title 55 is the administration law that tells the agencies how to apply the law. These are the operational rules they have to abide by. The requirement isn’t listed in there either.

This is a SHALL statement. The department shall not deny any person.

“Any person” would include my son, wouldn’t it?
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12169 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:07 am to
quote:

You actually found a lawyer to take this case?
If he's paying a flat fee, let alone an hourly rate, no reason for a lawyer not to take it (as long as they honestly explain the reasonable likelihood of success). This wouldn't be a contingency case.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:08 am
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84382 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:10 am to
OP, tell us how much you’re paying your lawyer.
Posted by VABuckeye
NOVA
Member since Dec 2007
38283 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:11 am to
Self-representation, bro. His son is the attorney.
Posted by Upperdecker
St. George, LA
Member since Nov 2014
32677 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:11 am to
Weird hill to die on but ok
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12169 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:14 am to
quote:

Please help me out then. I’m being serious.

If the social security section of 32:409.1 ONLY applies to alien individuals AND it’s the only section of title 32 that speaks about social security numbers in relation to licenses then where is the requirement?

Title 55 is the administration law that tells the agencies how to apply the law. These are the operational rules they have to abide by. The requirement isn’t listed in there either.

This is a SHALL statement. The department shall not deny any person.

“Any person” would include my son, wouldn’t it?
It’s not. Subsection (2)(d)(vi) says individuals applying for a driver's license shall provide a SSN. Then it provides an exception for aliens, but not anyone else.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:19 am
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
46365 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:14 am to
quote:

may not need to touch principle until RMD kicks in at 75
that is my plan as well. If I don’t touch retirement funds (ie: take a withdrawal) until 75 I should be good to go assuming that SS remains intact. The surprising thing I have learned (and it’s just math but most people would do well to do that math) is just how a little additional income (SS) makes a HUGE difference in expected lifespan of your nest egg

Take SS out and I run out of money…leave it in and I can live as long as Mother Nature allows me
Posted by TheOcean
#honeyfriedchicken
Member since Aug 2004
45111 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:15 am to
OP you're an idiot
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12169 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:15 am to
quote:

If the state law doesn’t prohibit them from denying him a license then surely the federal law will.

“(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
Then it's a federal question case and belongs in federal court.

That language also presupposes the person has a SSN and refuses to disclose it, not that they don't have one at all.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:17 am
Posted by rocksteady
Member since Sep 2013
2326 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:17 am to
Doesn’t want to enroll son in federal investment program paid from payroll taxes.

Son will never have to work in his life - dad, incredibly blessed.

What a stupid, fooking, c unnnnt

Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54836 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:19 am to
quote:

Subsection (2)(d)(vi) says individuals applying for a driver's license must provide a SSN. Then it provides an exception for aliens, but not anyone else.
Right. To give OP some hope, The explanatory/exception paragraph is potentially ambiguous giving him room for an argument. However, assuming he invests the time and money to convince the court(s), what does he actually win?

He didn’t answer my question - what consequence does he spare his son from by not having a SS# where he already has a passport and license? What is the benefit or advantage of not having arse#?
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:21 am
Posted by SG_Geaux
Beautiful St George, LA
Member since Aug 2004
80417 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:20 am to
quote:

He’s behind this.


Because he doesn't understand the situation his idiot father is putting him into.
Posted by SUB
Silver Tier TD Premium
Member since Jan 2009
24673 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:22 am to
quote:

maybe I’d have done better privately maybe not.


You absolutely would have done better privately. You basically earn little to no interest over your whole career on what you put into social security. It’s a scam.
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12169 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:24 am to
quote:

To give OP some hope, The explanatory/exception paragraph is potentially ambiguous giving him room for an argument.
I'm not super familiar with statutory construction in LA. Do courts typically interpret ambiguity in favor of the state or the individual?
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
46365 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:25 am to
quote:

To give OP some hope, The explanatory/exception paragraph is potentially ambiguous giving him room for an argument
every time someone talks to me about some great idea they have (a business, an income or investment opportunity, etc) it always reminds me to point out…

“Do you really think nobody has thought of this before?”

I can absolutely guarantee the OP that he is not the first nor will he be the last to ponder whether or not getting a SSN is “required”. The fact that this would require a lawsuit to resolve should answer that pretty definitively
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
46365 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:27 am to
quote:

You absolutely would have done better privately
but would I have invested those funds at all had I not been required to do so? The end result is that I was required, I did “invest” them, and I am now poised to get them back plus some

I’m ok with that

I look at it as deferred compensation
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 9:28 am
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54836 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:29 am to
I’m not a Louisiana guy. However, if he actually has a lawyer, I assume his lawyer has advised him of these issues and the costs of a lawsuit against the state on a matter of principle. That lawyer, if he is competent, also required a hefty retainer.
Posted by VABuckeye
NOVA
Member since Dec 2007
38283 posts
Posted on 11/9/24 at 9:34 am to
quote:

but would I have invested those funds at all had I not been required to do so? The end result is that I was required, I did “invest” them, and I am now poised to get them back plus some

I’m ok with that

I look at it as deferred compensation


Exactly. Younger me had little financial discipline. I’m fortunate that as I aged I become much smarter with my money. Now I am able to finagle my income in retirement to live the lifestyle of my choice and decide what I want my income to be in retirement.
Jump to page
Page First 7 8 9 10 11 ... 34
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 34Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram