Off duty Driving on paper logs

And there you have it incompetent to max.
Me I just pull my signs and roll on by. innocent till proven guilty is what the constitution states.
I've always wonder how they could prove it? You state you're off duty then you're out of their realm of jurisdiction so how they going to prove it?
There agian these dot people are about as useful as rocks.

 

Here's a clip from an online FMSC provided booklet. It has no mention of distance only said personal use is where commerce isn't involved and logging isn't needed.
Like I said how are you going to prove it?

 

Just let everybody interpret the way they want . There are too many inconsistencies . I remember one guidance question that states a driver can carry alcohol in a CMV when off duty and on his way home or to a place of lodging because when a driver is off duty he is exempt from FMCSR . That letter saying ONLY using PC between home and terminal or for food or lodging didn't say anything about a liquor store did it ? If alcohol is o.k. I bet he could also go to WalMart , Home Depot , a movie theater or whatever . Some LEO's would try to harass him for that while real offenders are out endangering the public.

 

If the DOT were as regulated as we are, then they would understand the problems we deal with.

What if we were able to ask them where they slept last night, did you watch a late show, let me see your car and look for donut and coffee scraps.

 

Actually, it doesn't state that. That is only an assumed position based on the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. If you can find a statement in the Constitution that says "innocent until proven guilty" then please share it with the class.

 

You are correct...except for the the part of the amendments. It comes from early trials and prosecution before the US was even envisioned, and has progressed forward as an inclusive but separable part of juris prudence with respect to judges and their instructions to jurors. Also, if it were in the Constitution, the IRS would not have the ability to force taxpayers to prove their innocence, if it were there, the IRS would be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of any taxpayer they claim owes $$$ to the government.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

It's not written on text, but is a long been a part of english common law. It's also embodied in several provisions of the constitution as is the right to remain silent and right to a jury.

 

Wikepedia isn't a good source for refrence and isn't allowed in many college classes.
The way the irs gets around some of the presumed inoccent part is they operate under "administrative law" which I call kanagroo court.
This way they can try and bully people for the most part. You can advance a case with the irs to a real trial level if you want but most people are scared of them and agree to whatever just from fear. Lot of the fmscas stuff operates under administrative law once you get it into the regular law arena it loose's a lot of it's bluster.

 

My experience with the IRS is that it operates under the philosophy of assumed guilt which the taxpayer must try to argue. If you use a plain argument, they are not required to even follow their own revenue rulings. They try to bully you into compliance.

 

last time I was harassed by the IRS, I told them to schedule it for court and to bring their findings of facts.

I got a letter shortly there after that they accepted my payment and the matter was settled.