home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Phoenix Rising BBS
/
phoenixrising.zip
/
phoenixrising
/
patriot
/
mso-kto.doc
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-12-21
|
70KB
|
1,624 lines
Manufacturer's Statement of Origin: Key to Ownership
by Bruce McCarthy
available from B.G.M./Applied Research
HC-62, Box 375
Smithville, Oklahoma
Write for list of available books and tapes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Statement of Origin -- Key To Ownership
by
Bruce G. McCarthy
PREFACE
Obtaining concise, meaningful answers from public officials is an unparalleled
and age-old challenge. Bureaucrats, after all, view their office as the last
bastion of liberty - and from this lofty perch they unashamedly claim the
right to remain silent.
"A [public] servant will not be corrected by words: for though he
understand he will not answer." Proverbs 29:19
Dilemma: How does one converse with a deaf-mute? Solution: Adopt a technique
of your adversary. Remember that certified letter?
"THIS IS THE VOICE OF DOOM SPEAKING! It has been determined that
you are a [taxpayer, neo-nazi, pinko, commie fag], and thus
subject to [an awesome statute is inserted here], and shall [pay
up, stand liable, etc.]... THIS DETERMINATION BECOMES FINAL 14
DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE UNLESS WITHIN SUCH TIME A WRITTEN
REQUEST FOR HEARING IS FILED WITH THIS OFFICE, SETTING FORTH YOUR
OBJECTIONS IN DETAIL."
Nice choice. To do nothing admits guilt, and the penalty. But to object makes
you the Plaintiff, with the burden of proof. Welcome to the proverbial 'rock
and a hard place' - craftily concocted by an agent of the Civil Law. A
determination - yours - was entered by 'tacit procuration'. Why not submit
your own, to correct the record - thereby introducing a third option?
"PROCURATION. Agency, proxy; the act of constituting another one's
attorney in fact. The act by which one person gives power to
another to act in his place, as he could do himself." Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 1086
The world abounds with procurators - lawyers, guardians, trustees and
legislators who generally obtain our EXPRESS consent. Courts and other
government agencies, on the other hand, use the IMPLIED, or tacit procuration.
A plea of 'not guilty' on behalf of a mute accused by a magistrate is such an
example.
"An express procuration is one made by the express consent of the
parties. AN IMPLIED OR TACIT PROCURATION TAKES PLACE WHEN AN
INDIVIDUAL SEES ANOTHER MANAGING HIS AFFAIRS AND DOES NOT
INTERFERE TO PREVENT IT." Black's supra, p. 1087 [emphasis mine]
Two 'hybrid' tacit procurations were employed in the enclosed MVD file as a
type of 'correspondence Drain-o' which you, the reader, may find useful
whenever it becomes necessary to...
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the
way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to
the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou
be cast into prison." Matthew 5:25
To avoid Caesar's prison, you must first avoid his courts. And a means to
such ends could be in securing agreements (stipulations) with your adversary,
so as to undermine his cause of action. Your position thus gains its greatest
strength, not where you and your adversary differ - but where you agree.
- Bruce G. McCarthy
[Exhibit A: Copy of form DOR-108]
[Exhibit B: Copy of purchase agreement]
[Exhibit C: Copy of Manufacturer's Statement of Origin]
MAXIMS OF THE CIVIL LAW IN SUPPORT OF TACIT PROCURATION
Silence shows consent. 6 Barb. [N.Y.] 2B, 35.
Qui non negat, fatetur. He who does not deny, admits. Trayner, Max. 503.
[many others not included - see Black's and Bouvier's Law Dictionaries]
--
Rt. 1, Box 61-A
Schell City, MO 84783
July 17, 1985
Title/License/Registration Division
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Jefferson City, MO 65104
Dear Sir or Madam:
Having secured a copy of APPLICATION FOR MISSOURI TITLE AND/OR LICENSE, I
need some clarification from your office prior to filling out such a form.
At the top of this form (DOR-108) appears "TITLE TYPE", with several "types"
listed (e.g., original, duplicate, etc.). These categories suggest one is
applying for something the first time or seeking a copy, but nowhere does the
form specifically identify what kind/type of "title" for which the application
is made.
1. What kind/type "title" do you issue?
The form provides a place for "OWNER'S NAME", though I suspect one must
produce proof of ownership, the State of Missouri not simply taking the
applicant's word.
2. What document is sufficient to prove ownership?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
October 17, 1985
RE: Application for Missouri Title (DOR-108)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Receiving no reply/answer to my two questions (letter dated July 17, 1985)
prompts this second attempt, contrary though it may be to the doctrine 'Yours
is not to reason why, but to do or die.' The passage of time has, naturally,
spawned additional questions, all of which you can see are simple and straight
forward.
Your Form DOR-108 lists several categories of "TITLE TYPE", but nowhere
specifically identifies what KIND of title is being sought in the original,
nor is the Missouri MVD definition of "title" anywhere disclosed,
necessitating a guess or question, the latter being the better choice.
1. How does DMV/DOR define the singular word "title"? (Do not confuse with
Certificate of Title, Missouri Title or other modified "titles".)
2. What kind/type "title" do you issue in the original?
The Form DOR-108 provides a place for "OWNER'S NAME", though I suspect the
applicant must produce written proof of ownership - unless your department
will take his word.
3. What document/s is/are deemed sufficient to prove ownership?
4. Does the applicant surrender possession of any document when applying for
a Missouri Title?
5. Does the applicant surrender any right/s by applying for Missouri title?
6. What is a "Missouri Title", as distinguished from a bare "title"
evidencing sole/absolute ownership?
7. Is either the Bill of Sale and/or Certificate of Origin (MSO) a document
or indication of title?
Since it is presumed the applicant is cognizant of whatsoever he makes
application, else would he apply, so too the grantor must comprehend all
conditions/ramifications couched in that which he bestows. Thus, prior to
making application, I need answers to these questions, confident that you
possess the wherewithal to provide them easily and without hesitation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
October 31, 1985
Missouri Department of Revenue
Motor Vehicle Bureau
P.O. Box 100
Jefferson City, MO 65105
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1985 regarding questions
pertaining to Form DOR-108 - Application for Missouri Title and/or License.
A "title" as defined in Section 301.190 of the Revised Statutes of the State
of Missouri, is a certificate of ownership containing a complete description
of the motor vehicle or trailer, manufacturer's or other identifying number,
together with a statement of any liens or encumbrances on the motor vehicle or
trailer.
Original titles are issued on motor vehicles, trailers, boats and motors.
A Missouri certificate of title issued in the owner's name is the only proof
of ownership.
A properly assigned title must be surrendered with any application for
Missouri title.
The applicant (purchaser) does not surrender any rights when applying for a
Missouri certificate of title.
A Missouri certificate of title is considered "open" until ownership is
transferred. To transfer ownership the assignment on the back of the title
must be completed and signed by the owner in the presence of a notary public.
A bill of sale is not considered an ownership document, but may be required to
verify an actual purchase price of a motor vehicle. The manufacturer's
statement of origin is not proof of ownership until an application for title
is presented to the Department of Revenue's Motor Vehicle Bureau along with
all state and local taxes required and the appropriate title and license fees.
I hope this information will be of help to you. Should you have any questions
or need additional information, please feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Bemboom, Supervisor
Information and Maintenance Section
NKB:ss
--
November 6, 1985
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: TITLE, CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, ETC.
Dear Nancy Bemboom:
Thank you for responding to my follow-up inquiry of October 17th, and I
certainly appreciate your offer of assistance. The understanding of a subject
necessitates comprehension of its terms, made possible by isolating one from
the other, examining each in a logical sequence. This I'm attempting to do,
and with your assistance should be able to grasp the subject at hand. In
furtherance of this goal, my seven (7) questions are reviewed herewith, along
with your correlative responses.
1. Re: Definition of 'title': "A title...is a CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
containing...description...identifying number...with a statement of any
liens..."
[a.] A 'title' is a piece of paper. [Yes/No]
[b.] The MSO is a piece of paper, containing the description, identifying
number...with statement of any liens. [Yes/No]
2. Re: Kind/Type title issued in the original: "Original titles are
issued...on motor vehicles, trailers..."
The question did not seek the nature of the entity upon which the title is
issued, but rather, the nature of the title ITSELF - and evidently, from your
response, "A Missouri CERTIFICATE of title [is] issued..."
[a.] Is a Certificate of Title, the Title for which it is the Certificate?
[Yes/No]
This is not circumlocution, but an essential question to unravel your
confusing response. For instance, a gold coin once deposited with a banker,
entitled the depositor to a receipt, or Certificate of Deposit. The paper
receipt was obviously not the deposit (gold coin). Likewise, a student, upon
receiving an education, is entitled to a document certifying the education was
received. The Certificate (diploma) is not the education itself.
3. Re: Document[s] sufficient to prove ownership: "A Missouri certificate of
title issued in the owner's name is the ONLY proof of ownership." (This may
have inadvertently answered my second question, but I needed a verification.
Thank you.)
[a.] Who owns the vehicle prior to obtaining a Missouri Certificate of Title,
assuming no lienholders?
i. Manufacturer
ii. Dealer
iii. Purchaser
iv. State (e.g. Missouri, Arizona, etc.)
v. No one
vi. Other
4. Re: Document surrendered to obtain a "Missouri Title": "A properly
assigned TITLE MUST BE SURRENDERED with any application for Missouri TITLE."
[a.] What kind/type of title must be surrendered or assigned to obtain a
Missouri (certificate OF) title?
5. Re: Rights surrendered: "The applicant [purchaser] does not surrender any
rights when applying for a Missouri CERTIFICATE OF TITLE." (Resolution
pending.) This was also your second reference to a 'certificate of title'.
6. Re: Difference between a Missouri Title and a Title: "A Missouri
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is considered 'open' until..." And this was your third
reference to 'certificate of title'.
"To transfer ownership the assignment on the back of the title must be
completed and signed by the owner..."
[a.] Which document are you calling the 'title', the back of which is
'completed and signed by the owner'?
7. Re: Bill of Sale and/or MSO: "A bill of sale is not considered an
ownership document..."
[a.] How do you define Bill of Sale?
You further stated, "The manufacturer's statement of origin is not proof of
ownership until an application for title is presented to the Department..."
[b.] What is your definition of MSO?
[c.] Does it become proof of ownership AFTER the application for "title"
(certificate OF)? [Yes/No]
Your time and consideration to my nine [9] questions will be most appreciated,
Nancy. If you would number and answer all of them, it would speed up my
comprehension.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
December 5, 1985
2ND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Dear Nancy Bemboom,
Pursuant to your offer of assistance dated October 31, 1985, I made inquiry
(November 6, 1985) into the accurate and lawful meaning of your letter, which
simultaneously confirmed and denied my understanding of the subject under
scrutiny. Thus far, I've received no answer.
Prior to making APPLICATION FOR MISSOURI "TITLE" AND/OR LICENSE, I must
UNDERSTAND what it is for which I'm applying! My initial query (2 questions)
made on July 17, 1985, went unanswered, prompting a second attempt (7
questions) on October 17, 1985, to which your convoluted reply of October 31,
1985 was made.
PLEASE ANSWER my nine [9] fundamental/essential questions that I might know
whether to complete your Form DOR-108. Your delay has been responsible for my
exercising the necessary Right of Travel, absent State of Missouri privileges
(e.g., Missouri "Title" and/or License).
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
December 30, 1985
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION VIA TACIT PROCURATION
Dear Nancy Bemboom:
Having made two unanswered requests (6 Nov and 5 Dec 1985) for clarification
of your 31 Oct 1985 response prompts this third attempt to obtain clear,
concise answers to a perplexing problem. Thus, I hope to 'sound out' the Motor
Vehicle Bureau as to lawful implications of widely used, but perhaps
misunderstood terms.
DETERMINATION/RESPONSE BY PROXY
The following questions are answered herein on your behalf, thus resolving the
'stalemate' imposed by your failure to respond.
1. Is the MSO a certificate of ownership containing description, identifying
number (of automobile or trailer, etc.), with statement of liens? ANSWER: YES.
2. Is a Certificate of Title the 'Title' for which it is the Certificate?
ANSWER: NO.
3. Who 'owns' an automobile or trailer, assuming no lienholder, prior to
obtaining a Missouri Certificate of Title? ANSWER: PURCHASER/PARTY WITH THE
BILL OF SALE AND/OR MSO (without lien) IS ABSOLUTE OWNER.
4. What documents are sufficient to prove lawful and absolute ownership?
ANSWER: BILL OF SALE AND MSO.
5. What document must be surrendered to obtain a Missouri Certificate of
Title? ANSWER: THE TITLE.
6. What document, conforming to the definition of a 'title', must be
surrendered by the owner to obtain a Missouri Certificate of Title? ANSWER:
THE MSO.
7. Can the absolute owner of autombile or trailer be compelled to surrender
the TITLE to that which he owns free and clear? ANSWER: NO.
8. Are all rightful elements/conditions of absolute ownership recognized,
upheld and respected by the Missouri Department of Revenue? ANSWER: YES.
9. Are any 'rights' surrendered when applying for Missouri Certificate of
Title? ANSWER: YES. ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IS SURRENDERED IN EXCHANGE FOR
QUALIFIED OWNERSHIP AS THE BARE LEGAL OWNER, THE STATE BECOMING AN EQUITABLE
OWNER IN THE AUTOMOBILE, TRAILER, ETC.
10. Can the State of Missouri lawfully compel anyone to surrender their right
of ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP in exchange for QUALIFIED OWNERSHIP? ANSWER: NO.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL DETERMINATION
Thus. by REASON of the foregoing, it is determined an absolute owner CANNOT be
compelled to surrender one right so as to secure another, nor to exercise a
State granted privilege. An absolute owner cannot be compelled to obtain a
Missouri Certificate of Title when already possessing the MSO/Title without
liens.
DETERMINATION FINAL ABSENT OBJECTION
This determination becomes FINAL unless specifically objected to in detail
within 14 days of receipt of this instrument. Allowance for additional time
will be granted if lawful provision is cited within the initial 14 day period.
Dated this _____ day of January, 1986
Pursuant to the Bible doctrine of 'two or three witnesses' (Dt. 19:15, Mt.
18:16, etc), we put our hands to this instrument.
___________________ ____________________
(Bruce G. McCarthy) (Janice C. McCarthy)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We, Bruce G. and Janice C. McCarthy, hereby certify that we have made due
service of the foregoing upon Nancy K. Bemboom by U.S. Mail (Certified -
Return Receipt), a conformed copy sent to her at Department of Revenue, Box
100, Jefferson City, MO, this 9th day of January, 1986.
___________________ ____________________
(Bruce G. McCarthy) (Janice C. McCarthy)
--
January 7, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
This is in response to your December 30, 1985 correspondence regarding details
of Missouri's motor vehicle titling and registration laws.
Section 301.190 of the Missouri Revised Statutes provides that no Missouri
certificate of Registration for any motor vehicle or trailer shall be issued
by the Director of Revenue unless the owner makes application for and is
granted a Missouri certificate of ownership (title) to such motor vehicle, or
presents satisfactory evidence that such certificate has been previously
issued to the owner for such motor vehicle of trailer.
The State of Missouri does not purport to have any ownership rights or equity
in a motor vehicle or trailer by virtue of issuing a Missouri certificate of
ownership (title) to the motor vehicle or trailer; however, Missouri law does
clearly state that citizens of Missouri may not legally operate their vehicles
on the streets and highways of this State unless and until they have been
granted a certificate of ownership (title) for the vehicles. In short, titling
must precede registration in Misouri. It is legal to title your vehicle and
not register it, but illegal to register it without first titling it.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
cc: Nancy K. Bemboom
--
January 15, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Thank you for responding (7 Jan '86) to my instrument of 30 Dec 1985,
addressed to Nancy K. Bemboom. She recently received a corrected copy via
certified mail to amend my error in the Certificate of Service section.
A goodly portion of your letter, however, spoke to the necessity of having a
Certificate of Title prior to applying for a Missouri Certificate of
REGISTRATION - an issue not under consideration at present. By first resolving
the 'title' question, the subject of 'registration' will be more easily
understood, the 'whole' being comprehended in/as the sum of its 'parts'.
Apparently we are one accord, however, with respect to nine (out of ten)
elements in the proxy determintion, your singular objection made to Question
#9 (re: 'rights' surrendered) - our attention thus narrowed to this specific
(albeit non-detailed) objection.
"The State of Missouri does not PURPORT to have any ownership rights or
equity in a motor vehicle or trailer by virtue of issuing a Missouri
certificate of ownership (title)..." -per yours, 7 Jan '86.
What may be a truism need not necessarily find expression in bold print and/or
positive declaration. For instance, a yellow curved fruit may be a banana,
without having a flourescent sign affixed and spelling out its name. If the
item meets the criteria for a banana - it is one. Thus bananas do not
'purport' to be bananas.
But nevertheless, I may have been hasty in judgment, in which case I shall ask
but three questions to put my mind at ease:
1. Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO (assuming no lienholders)
prior to obtaining a Missouri Certificate of Title?
2. Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO AFTER obtaining a Missouri
Certificate of Title?
3. Does an applicant for Missouri Certificate of Title have the option to
recover his MSO?
Evidently, by your response the term 'equity' was mistaken to mean 'net
worth', which in this instance does not apply. Rather, the term signified a
system of jurisprudence somewhat akin to, but not synonymous with, 'law'.
Your prompt attention to this matter will be most appreciated as my
needs/desires can only be fulfilled by physical movement from place to place.
My options are to trespass on private ground or use the public highways - the
latter having been my choice.
Prior to making application for your Certificate of Title, I must know (and
have a right to know) what it is for which application is made - and what is
surrendered in the process.
Thank you Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
January 17, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I trust this letter will allow you to take the final step in your journey to
know, "...what it is for which application is made [a Missouri Certificate of
Title] and what is surrendered [a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin] in the
process."
Listed below are the answers to your three questions.
1. "Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO (assuming no lienholders)
prior to obtaining a MO Certificate of Title?"
ANSWER: The motor vehicle dealership listed on the face of the MSO, if
unassigned, or the last assigned owner on the reverse of the MSO.
2. "Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO AFTER obtaining a MO
Certificate of Title?"
ANSWER: The Motor Vehicle Bureau of the Missouri Department of Revenue.
3. "Does an applicant for MO Certificate of Title have the option to
recover his MSO?"
ANSWER: No.
We look forward to receiving your application for a MO Certificate of Title.
Incidentally, Mr. McCarthy, Missouri citizens are required by Section 301.190
of the Revised Statutes of Missouri to apply for a Missouri Certificate of
Title within thirty days from the date of purchase of a motor vehicle or
trailer.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
--
January 23, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Thank you for the forthright reply (17 Jan '86) to my questions, again
confirming we have but a singular disagreement arising from the proxy
determination of 30 Dec '85 (re-submitted 9 Jan '86). And you know, one out of
ten isn't bad! Even these three answers confirmed my premise, further proving
we have little in dispute - save perhaps my failure to proceed in haste. But I
am puzzled one can be "...required...to apply for a...Certificate of Title.."!
1. Can a person be COMPELLED at law to make an 'application' (request,
petition, etc.)?
2. Is there a valid binding application when not obtained by/of one's free
will/choice? ("Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3)
3. If we ARE compelled to 'apply' for a MO Certificate of Title within 30
days, after which ownership/property rights to MSO reside with MO - can you
automatically obtain our MSO after 30 days by court order, etc.?
Obviously, if our MSO belongs to the Motor Vehicle Bureau AFTER we 'apply' for
the MO Certificate of Title, and we are REQUIRED to make application within 30
days - the MSO must belong to Missouri AFTER 30 days, even if we DON'T
'apply'. And if we have something that belongs to you, there ought to be legal
remedy available for you to wrest it from us.
4. And IF this be true - how did you acquire an ownership/property right to
the MSO PRIOR to our application?
[a.] By contract/quasi-contract provision at time of sale/transaction.
[b.] No such right exists before applicant requests MO Certificate of Title.
[c.] Other (please explain).
This Catch-22 situation must have a reasonable solution, for doubtless we're
on the horns of a 'choice of laws/conflict of laws' dilemma, the 'choice'
between 'law' and 'equity'. And to reconcile the threat of bodily harm/risk of
property loss due to my delayed application for your equity jurisdiction:
5. Will Motor Vehicle Bureau accept my application for MO Certificate of
Title expressly made "under duress, out of fear of distraint and distress"?
Thank you for your time and consideration Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
January 27, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Listed below are the answers to the questions contained in your most recent
letter of January 23, 1986:
1. Section 301.190 of Missouri Law compels Missouri citizens to apply for
title to and pay taxes on a motor vehicle within thirty days after the
motor vehicle is acquired by the applicant.
2. Whether or not Missouri citizens choose to observe this Law of their own
free will or not is academic.
3. Missouri may not "automatically obtain a [citizen's] MSO after 30 days
by court order" if the citizen elects to violate Section 301.190 of
Missouri Law.
4. A Missouri citizen in possession of an MSO has nothing that "belongs to
[the State of Missouri]". Hence, Missouri has no "ownership/property
right" to a citizen's MSO PRIOR TO his or her application for a Missouri
Certificate of Title.
5. The Motor Vehicle Bureau will accept a citizen's application for Missouri
Certificate of Title regardless of the fact that such application may be
made "under duress, out of fear of distraint and distress."
We would hope, however, that Missouri citizens would observe their duty to
follow Missouri Laws of their own free will and in the spirit of accord which
you so aptly cited from Amos 3:3.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
--
February 10, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Being away for a few days has delayed my response to your letter of 27 Jan '86
in which you provided some puzzling answers - addressed herein for
clarification.
Re: Section 301.190 which allegedly "compels" an application for title: While
I can readily grasp how one might be "required" to apply within 30 days to
avoid penalty, I cannot see how an act of "application" (a request) can be
linked with "compulsion". It appears you have comingled to involuntary
stimulus of one party (the grantor) with the voluntary action of another (the
grantee), creating, as it were, a non-sequitor.
1. Are you absolutely certain the granting party (State) can lawfully compel
the applicant to entreat, beg, petition or make request of the compelling
grantor?
2. And when do individual natural persons become subject to these Motor
Vehicle Statutes?
a. At birth.
b. At a particular age.
c. Upon application for license, etc.
d. Once within the Missouri borders.
e. Other.
I've never yet seen a copy of these Motor Vehicle Statutes which you allege
are binding upon me.
3. Is a complete set of Motor Vehicle Statutes issued to all license,
registration and/or State Certificate of Title applicants - or are they all
presumed to know the statutes?
Further, if one can be compelled to apply for a 'title' within 30 days of
motor vehicle acquisition, it is incumbent upon us all to know the
characteristics of this 'thing' so we can recognize it when we see, smell,
hear, taste and/or touch the 'title' - lest others deceive/coerce us into
relinquishing what we possess, but fail to discern/distinguish.
4. Is the 'title' (not to be construed with a certificate/document OF title)
tangible or non-tangible?
A CERTIFICATE of Title, being made of paper, IS tangible, but is not the
'title' for which it is a certificate. The 'title' proper seems to be a non-
tangible appelation (e.g., king, husband, buyer, owner, etc.) made manifest/
evident by a document. If this is not so, please correct me.
5. Does the 'title' per se pass from seller to buyer at the date/time/instant
of payment?
Oh mercy. I've asked more questions. Please forgive me for being so
inquisitive and thank you for the time and effort expended to answer them.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
February 14, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Your letter of February 10, 1986 has convinced me that I may no longer be of
assistance to you.
I am forwarding your most recent letter, as well as all previous letters from
you (with my responses attached) to our General Counsel's Office and Criminal
Investigation Bureau for whatever action they deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr,. Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
--
February 27, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Your latest letter (10 Feb '86) suggests you may have lost your patience with
me. Perhaps you too feel "(Mine) is not to reason why, but to do or die".
Please forgive my curiosity and thanks for the help thus far, resting assured
I'll not think ill of you for dropping out. Maybe the next party higher up the
ladder (did I err, thinking it wass you?) will keep us both abreast of their
knowledge and understanding on this subject.
By the way, I have heard from neither your General Counsel OR the Criminal
Investigation Bureau as of yet. Would you mind prodding them just a wee bit
for me? Those last five (5) questions were quite important, and maybe they
have the answers.
Meanwhile, please send me a complete set of the Missouri Motor Vehicle
Statutes you imply are binding upon me. In checking around, I can find NO ONE
who has ever read them! Isn't that amazing?! Maybe we should rename this the
"SNOW ME" State. After all, a motorist on the highways without full knowledge
of the statutes is like a cow fenced in with invisible electric wire. He knows
when the limits (statutes) are violated when he experiences the shock
(statutory penalty) after the fact. Uncertain of avoiding future 'unknown
penalties', he consequently lives in a state of perpetual (albeit concealed)
fear (of the unknown).
Is this demonstrative of a self-governing "free" and Christian people? Or an
unrily PUBLIC requiring POLICY (regulation) from an external source?
Apparently, the churches/schools failed to teach what the parents also avoided
- the law of God. Could this be the root problem of our degenerating society?
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law." 1 Jn. 3:4
And could it be that LAW accomodates the individual who assumes full
liability, while EQUITY (a system of jurisprudence) is that which is
administered for limited-liability "wards of the State"? Since our
Constitutions provide for both, it raises a question:
1. Which system do the Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes represent?
(Law or Equity?)
Thanks again, Mr. Munsen, and I wish not to incur your ire simply because I've
inquired of the statutes you administer and claim bind upon me. I just
naturally dislike invisible fences.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
March 12, 1986
BRIEF SYNOPSIS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION VIA TACIT PROCURATION
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Upon review of my files, and considering your impatience, perhaps we could
resolve this situation more quickly without your direct inputs - first by
laying a foundation of material evidence upon which my decisions/actions are
predicated, followed thereafter by a proxy determination - to which you may
object.
The following events/terms parallel those which an applicant for MO
Certificate of Title encounters, and while blind obedience is that marvel of
expedience, reasonable inquiry is the springboard of understanding. So in the
words of Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together..."
The applicant/moving party REQUESTS a Form DOR-108, seeking a MO Certificate
of Title from the 'passive' granting party.
"REQUEST, v. To ask for something or for permission to do, see, hear,
etc., something; to solicit; and is synonymous with beg, entreat and
beseech." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 1468.
The ensuing nexus/relationship between applicant and the granting party/State
is created by APPLICATION.
"APPLICATION. A putting to, placing before preferring a request or
petition to or before a person." Black's, 4th ed., p. 127.
"PETITION. A written address, embodying an application or prayer from
the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body or person to
whom it is presented, for...the grant of some FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR
LICENSE." Black's, 4th ed., p. 1302. [my emphasis]
WE MAKE NO APPLICATION FOR 'FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE'; however, applicants
are presumed to know what it is for which they 'beg or entreat' - else would
they apply. Likewise, the grantor must know the conditions couched in the
ensuing nexus. Upon returning Form DOR-108, applicants must prove OWNERSHIP (A
term incomplete in itself) for the item (auto/etc.) in question.
"OWNERSHIP. Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The
ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute
dominion over it...The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one
or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or
when the use is restricted." Black's, 5th ed., p. 977.
Liens and/or insurable interests create QUALIFIED ownership in an item, use
being restricted by contract. The State may also obtain an interest therein,
although you and Nancy Bemboom assure us no Rights are relinquished subsequent
to State titling. So ABSOLUTE ownership must meet/exceed your general terms
'own, owner', etc.
"OWN. To have a good legal TITLE; to hold as property; to have a legal
or rightful TITLE to; to have; to possess." Black's, 5th ed., p. 996.
[my emph.]
"OWNER. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion or TITLE of
property...He who has dominion of a thing...which he has a right to
enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as
the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant
which restrains his right." Ibid, p. 996.
Clearly, the applicant HAS title, else could he sign as the owner (either
absolute or qualified) without committing perjury! But an agent of yours
stated WE DO NOT "OWN" the item covered by an MSO (without lien) and Bill of
Sale ("paid in full") - rather, the DEALER owns it. Another agent then
declared that at one point "...no one owns it." Mercy! We own it, the dealer
owns it - NO ONE OWNS IT!
"OWNERSHIP. Collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including
right to transmit it to others. The COMPLETE dominion, TITLE or
proprietary right in a thing or claim." Ibid, p. 997. [my emph.]
Indeed! TITLE (an intangible appelation called OWNERSHIP) passes from seller
to buyer at the time of payment - not later, in some Motor Vehicle Office.
Title cannot pass from the seller to buyer (new OWNER) who mysteriously
recovers it from a third party (State) which was not involved in the sale!
"Title to said equipment shall remain in the seller, until the
agreed purchase price therefor is paid in full in cash; thereupon
TITLE TO THE WITHIN DESCRIBED UNIT PASSES TO THE BUYER AS OF THE
DATE OF PAYMENT, even though the actual physical delivery may not
be made until a later date." Purchasing Agreement per U.C.C., Sec.
2-201 (our Owner/Customer copy)
Applicants for MO Certificate of Title prove ownership/TITLE by showing - and
then SURRENDERING - the proof (MSO). However, when you want to 'cash' [sic] a
check, your proof of identification is not surrendered. Something PARAMOUNT
resides in an MSO, making it the source of the latter/lesser document.
"PARAMOUNT TITLE. In the law of real property, properly one which is
superior to the title with which it is compared, in the sense that the
former is the source or origin of the latter." Black's, 5th ed. ,p.
1001.
QUESTION: "Does the applicant surrender...any document when applying for a
MO Certificate of Title?" (BGM letter of 17 Oct '85)
ANSWWER: "...TITLE MUST BE SURRENDERED with any application for MO title."
And, "A 'title' as defined in Section 301.190...is a certificate of ownership
containing...description...with a statement of any liens..." (Nancy Bemboom
letter of 31 Oct '85)
This describes the MSO, which is the DOCUMENT OF TITLE.
"DOCUMENT OF TITLE. Includes bill of lading...and also any other document
which in the regular course of business or financing is treated as
adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to
receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers."
Black's, 5th ed., p. 432.
This "other document" includes the Certificate of Origin, which neither
"purports" to be a Document of Title, nor an MSO, but is augmented by another
ownership/title document - the BILL OF SALE.
"BILL OF SALE. Legal document which conveys TITLE from seller to buyer."
Ibid, p. 149. [my epmh]
"ASSIGNMENT. Tangible property is more often transferred by possession
and by instruments conveying title such as a deed or a BILL OF SALE."
Ibid, p. 109. [my emph.]
The bill of sale is obviously a title/ownership document, having been the
INDICIA OF TITLE for more years than not, prior to this recently added legal
hurdle of a State Certificate of Title.
"INDICIA OF TITLE. Generally, a document evidencing TITLE to property,
real or personal; e.g., carbon copy of bill of sale to autmobile."
Ibid, p. 694.
Mr. Munsen, am ABSOLUTE owner HAS complete and perfect title. A debtor does
not, being instead a mere LEGAL owner, subject to the surrender of his MSO,
perhaps by contract with the bank/etc.
"LEGAL OWNER. One who is recognized and held responsible by the law
as the owner of property. In a more particular sense, one in whom the
legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust for
the benefit of another, the latter being called the EQUITABLE owner."
Ibid, p. 997. [my emph]
Real ESTATE is our concern, and from the foregoing, an EQUITABLE owner is
considered more lofty than a legal owner.
"EQUITABLE OWNER. One who is recognized in EQUITY as the owner of
property, because the real and beneficial use and title belong to
him, although the bare legal title is vested in another..." Ibid,
p. 996. [my emph]
"EQUITY. ...is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction,
differing in its origin, theory and methods from the common law...
A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects
independent of law." Ibid, p. 484.
As an aside, both systems (common law and equity) are referred to in the U.S.
Constitution (Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1, &c.), although most people
are now subject to equity, having exchanged Rights at Law for government
granted/revokable privileges/"civil rights" - or slavery by contract/consent,
pursuant to the 13th Amendment. And 'legal' is the mere FORM of law, while
'lawful' contemplates the SUBSTANCE of law. While one may CONTRACT into
equity, he cannot be lawfully COMPELLED to abandon the Law.
Thus, the MSO is 'voluntarily' surrendered to, and becomes property of, the
State, which thereafter assumes a correlative interest in the item covered BY
the MSO. The 'legal' owner uses the car/&c. by 'permit' which he 'begs'
annually - subject to revisable rules.
Many people share ownership with the banks, which protect their interest in
the cars/&c. by adding another contract - insurance. Hence, the underwriters
obtain an interest in automobiles/etc. by assuming the greater liability. The
banks and insurance companies then seek legislation (equity) to regulate their
limited liability debtors - many of whom act/drive like there will be no
tomorrow.
"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the
lender." Pr. 22:7
The cattle drives are still with us, but the steers are now made of steel -
called automobiles, 'tagged' by the 'branding' office (Motor Vehicle Bureau.
The cowpokes (police) inspect these tags whenever a bad steer is culled from
the herd, using the tag to ascertain whether any equitable owner has a 'beef'
(ho ho) with the renegate who may have forgotten to make his paymennts, beg
for an annual permission slip, etc.
Motor Vehicle Bureau has an important task to keep abreast of the statistical
information on automobiles/etc. which ramble all over God's earth unowned by
the operators. The 'real' owners have a right/need to know where they are, and
this is where you come in - and where we part company.
Equitable owners naturally have a vested interest in the personal habits of
their operators. For instance, DUI/OUI contributes to many accident claims, so
those with a vested interest in locating intoxicated motorists have encouraged
'roadblocks', which violate our Rights at Law. Licensing is the 'legal' method
to circumvent the law - licensees CONSENTING to statutes which run COUNTER to
law, subjecting themselves VOLUNTARILY to equity jurisdiction.
This is not to condemn equity itself, but rather the methodology (force and
deception) used to draw people under its umbrella.
PROXY DETERMINATION
Thus by reason of the foregoing, this Proxy Determination is made to resolve
the stalemate imposed by your silence, an to let the truth be known.
1. Does Title of auto/etc. pass from seller to buyer at time of payment,
absent lienholder(s)? ANSWER: YES.
2. Does evidence of Absolute and Perfect Title precede a Missouri Certificate
of Title? ANSWER: YES.
3. Can we obtain a Missouri Registration before receiving a Missouri
Certificate of Title? ANSWER: NO.
4. Can we obtain a Missouri Certificate of Title before surrendering Title
(per Bemboom 31 Oct '85 and mine (Proxy) 30 Dec '85 and 9 Jan '86)? ANSWER:
NO.
5. Can we be compelled At Law to surrender Title to that which we own free and
clear? ANSWER: NO.
6. Failing to voluntarily surrender title pursuant to threat of penalty
imposed in equity, can we be compelled At Law to register auto/etc? ANSWER:
NO.
7. When do we become subject to Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes? ANSWER: UPON
APPLICATION FOR FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE GOVERNED BY SAID STATUTES.
8. Are these statutes of an At Law or Equity jurisdiction/nature? ANSWER:
EQUITY.
9. Can we be compelled to abandon Rights At Law and/or to seek privileges in
Equity? ANSWER: NO.
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Therefore, by reason of the foregoing, the party in possession of (and to whom
is issued) MSO and Bill of Sale (absent lienholders) is the absolute owner of
said method of conveyance and cannot be compelled to surrender absolute
ownership or ownership documents (e.g., MSO/Document of Title).
The retention of absolute ownership precludes receipt of Missouri Certificate
of Registration, said Registration contingent upon an application for
Certificate of Title (and surrender of paramount title document/MSO) which
cannot be compelled At Law.
Therefore, registration/license plates VOLUNTARILY obtained by an application
of a de jure citizen entering an equity jurisdiction are NOT compellable At
Law, for one cannot be compelled At Law to abandon Law, nor can one be
compelled by equity to enter equity.
RE: TRAVELER IN HIS PERSON
A traveler using the highways for viatic purposes, not for hire or
compensation, without bond of law (contract) to Motor Vehicle Departments,
equitable owners or parties with insurable interest, using such absolutely
owned method of locomotion or conveyance, retains his/her right to travel At
Law, as distinguished from the mere PRIVILEGE to "drive" under equity
jurisdiction.
A license is a PRIVILEGE, and a PRIVILEGE is permission to do something
against or beyond the course of the law (see Black's). However, the simple
exercise of one's At Law right to travel is not, and never was, against or
beyond the course of law.
"Personal liberty, or the right of the enjoyment of life and liberty, is one
of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived
from or dependent on the U.S. Constitution, and which may not be submitted
to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the
most sacred and valuable rights, as sacred as the right to private
property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law,
Sec. 202, p. 987.
"Personal liberty largely consists of THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION - to go where
and when one pleases - only so far restrained as the rights of others may
make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of the
citizen TO TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and to transport his property
thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon OR AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT A MERE
PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, BUT A COMMON RIGHT
which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal
conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in
public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner,
neither interfering with, nor disturbing another's rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." 11 Am. Jur.
1st, Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135.
WARNING!!!
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which could abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 491.
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate
any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because
of his having so exercised the same...they shall be fined not more than
$10,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both..." Title 18, United
States Code, Section 241.
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, territory or district to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by
the Constitution of laws of the United States...shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both..." Title 18, United
States Code, Section 242.
DETERMINATION FINAL
This Determination becomes FINAL if not specifically objected to in detail
within 14 days of receipt; extension of deadline herein granted if statutory
provision is cited within the said 14 days.
--------
Thank you Mr. Munsen - and rest assured I feel neither bitterness nor rancor
towards your agency or its officials. You perform an essential service to and
for Missouri debtors/creditors - but not us.
Dated this 12th day of March 1986.
Pursuant to the Bible doctrine of 'two or three witnesses' (Dt. 19:15, Mt.
18:16, etc.) we put our hands to this instrument.
_________________ __________________
Bruce G. McCarthy Janice C. McCarthy
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We certify that due service of the foregoing SYNOPSIS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION has been made upon Mr. Morris D. Munsen, Jr., by U.S. Mail
(Certified - Return Receipt) at his office (Motor Vehicle Bureau, P.O. Box
100, Jefferson City, MO) on the ____ day of March 1986.
_________________ __________________
Bruce G. McCarthy Janice C. McCarthy
--
March 14, 1986
Missouri Department of Revenue
p.O. Box 475
Jefferson City, MO
65105
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
A quick perusal of our computer files has revealed the following:
1. There are no motor vehicles titled to you in the State of Missouri, which
is probably just as well, since
2. No Missouri operator's license has been issued to you. We were going to
contact you by telephone, but
3. There is no telephone listing in your name.
4. Furthermore, we can't seem to find any record of you having paid any
Missouri income tax for the last five (5) years.
Perhaps if you were to give us more accurate information as to your identity,
we could provide the appropriate responses to your questions.
Sincerely,
James A. Chenault III
Assistant General Counsel
JAC/kv
cc: Morris Munsen
--
March 18, 1986
Dear Mr. Chenault:
Thank you for the communique (14 Mar '86), although the answers to my five
essential questions of 10 Feb '86 were conspicuous by their absence. Have we a
communications problem? Or was this a response only to my 12 Mar '86 Synopsis/
Proxy Determination?
Has it become your duty to enter the 'objections' as necessary? I only need
the name/title ('identity') of the person handling this case at present,
having already been re-routeed twice. I suspect target identification is going
to be more challenging for my side than yours, unaware as to how many others
there in Jefferson City may ultimately share in resolving my concerns.
Your interest in my identity apparently extends beyond my person, encompassing
any acquisitions and extraneous matters of pecuniary import, suggesting yours
could be a mind which strays easily from the topic at hand. Nothing you
mentioned had a direct relevance to my inquiries. If my 'motor vehicles' were
state 'titled' (#1), the issue would be moot, assuming I had a motor vehicle
by your definition - which I'm not sure.
The existence of a Missouri 'operator's license' (#2) is not at issue as yet,
nor the fact (#3) that I have no listed telephone number. But you're lucky you
didn't reach me, as I'm prone to be long-winded.
And what, pray tell, does the payment of Missouri income taxes (#4) have to do
with what I've asked and whether I'm entitled to an answer? I want to know
something BEFORE we get hitched - rather than wait 'til the honeymoon is over.
Is that unreasonable?
Providing any information necessary to help resolve this quagmire would be my
greatest wish, but I'm inclined to believe you are in possession of this, and
not I. If not, what is the 'more accurate information' you need concerning my
'identity'? Would there be a substantial difference in your 'appropriate
responses' were these questions to emanate from a prospective teenage
automobile owner? Or a retired Alaskan pipefitter? Before anyone makes
application, they have both a need and a right to know EXACTLY what it is they
will incur - don't you agree?
Meanwhile, I'm confident your office possesses the wherewithal to answer the
five questions outstanding sine the 10th of February. May I count on your
support?
Thanks Mr. Chenault.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
March 19, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
You seem to have missed the point of my last letter. The point is: the
taxpayers of Missouri pay our salaries here at the Department of Revenue. I am
sure the taxpayers of this fair state would be outraged over the amount of
their time and money we have spent thus far attempting to satiate one who is
not to be found in their ranks.
I do not believe I can, in good conscience, continue to expend their funds on
this matter.
Sincerely,
James A. Chenault III
Assistant General Counsel
JAC/kv
cc: Morris Munsen
--
March 22, 1986
Dear Mr. Chenault:
By the tenor of your terse remarks (19 Mar '86), it would seem you have been
endowed with an even greater deficiency of patience than the last two DOR
agents. And sorry I missed the point. Maybe you'd do better to express and
stress it next time, for those of us lacking the perspicacity to probe such
profundities.
Apparently, the out of state 'new arrival' is entitled to no more courtesy
than your 'native son' whose name has yet to be recorded in your 'book of
life' (dossier). Such callousness seems somewhat out of character for one who
champions the 'taxpayers [and future taxpayers?] of this fair state'. Your
concern for the prudent use of "taxpayer's time and money" is laudable indeed,
for we do not wish to cause an 'outraged' citizenry. But you failed to
consider my potential outrage pursuant to an eight month runaround. Why?
To allay your good conscience and stem a potential mass uprising, I will
gladly pay the monetary cost of this contest. Identify the 'money' (expressed
in dollars) currently used by your agency, and I will begin by sending you 100
POUNDS of it! This should satiate your thirst for funds and thus lift this
grievous burden from the shoulder of our toiling masses. Then, maybe I will
also be 'found in their ranks' - counted as one of your productive drones.
Meanwhile, Mr. Munsen's time (re Administrate Determination by Proxy) is
running. Why not give him a hand.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
March 25, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
The answers to the five questions presented in your letter to me of February
10, 1986 are as follows:
1. I personally am not "absolutely certain" that the state of Missouri may
"lawfully compel" a Missouri citizen to apply for a Missouri Certificate
of Title to a vehicle within thirty days of its purchase. Missouri law,
however, does certainly REQUIRE such an action on the part of Missouri
citizens.
2. Natural persons become subject to Missouri's titling and registration laws
thirty days after establishing residency in Missouri.
3. A complete set of Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes is not "issued" to all
license, registration and title applicants. Missouri citizens are presumed
to know the laws of the state.
4. You may correctly consider the title, "not to be construed with a
certificate/document OF title", to be "an intangible appelation called
ownership".
5. Title, i.e., ownership, does pass from seller to buyer upon the valid
assignment of a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin or a Certificate of
Title. To effect a valid assignment of title to a vehicle, the
acknowledgment of assignment by the owner before a notary public is
mandatory.
Mr. McCarthy, I realize we could go on trading questions and answers in this
vein for quite some time. My concern is not that I cannot answer your
questions, but rather that we avoid a situation where there is no final
answer, merely a series of exchanges which never narrows to the point.
I trust my letter has provided your final answer on this matter.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
--
April 2, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Thank you for the candid response to my five questions of 10 Feb '86, and I
cannot overemphasize my sincere desire to sidestep all needless conflict, nor
is it my intent to create a situation with no final answer, although we could
have gotten to the point a bit sooner with more honest and complete answers.
Consider, for example, the baffling response of Nancy Bemboom (31 Oct '85) in
which she stated, "A Missouri Certificate of Title...is the only proof of
ownership." There are probably many who hold this belief, but popular delusion
is no less delusion. Applicants must first PROVE ownership, however, before
obtaining their "only proof of ownership". Oh dear. Either an applicant
commits perjury, or someone at your office made a false statement. Please help
me.
1. Is ownership made imperfect, perhaps by contract, the buyer somehow absent
Property Right until a duty is rendered to the State of Missouri?
I feel as though you may have tried to tell me something - that I don't own an
item, or have any property right in it, unless I first satisfy the State of
Missouri by jumping through a few "statutory hoops". Now to your letter.
Re the 30 day requirement. It appears by the wording of your MO Certificate of
Title ("You must apply...within 30 days...or pay a delinquent penalty.") that
the requirement is merely to avoid a penalty if one wishes to apply later, the
'fee' serving as an inducement to volunteer/apply early. By your omission, we
are led to believe one can simply be compelled to apply.
Next. If one is subject to the MO Motor Vehicle Statutes solely on the basis
of 30 days residence, this would cover all natural persons regardless of age
or mental acuity. However, I question whether a five or ten year old child is
chargeable under your statutes. Have we another omission?
2. Is there no requirement to first APPLY for something (license, etc.)
covered by the Motor Vehicle Statutes before becoming subject to them?
I'm not trying to quarrel with every jot and tittle, but consider a pilot who
becomes incapacitated, his unlicensed passenger then taking the controls to
land the airplane. I seriously doubt the passenger would (or COULD) be cited
for operating an airplane without a license, having never created the
administrative nexus by which he becomes subject to the applicable statutes.
The idea that Missouri citizens are "presumed to know the laws" challenges all
common sense (which isn't too common), especially considering the
proliferation of 'revised' statutes. To know all statute law is IMPOSSIBLE and
DOUBLY ABSURD when the statutes are withheld from applicants who cannot 'know'
them all in the first place. To retain this presumption, there would have to
be a voluntary act of application by a moving party, presumed to know what it
was for which he freely, without coercion, made application.
3. Am I right? If not, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
Thank you for the assistance, Mr. Munsen, trusting these last three questions
will obviate additional queries. It's evident by your express and tacit
determinations that we have NO EXISTING CONTROVERSY regarding my Right to
Travel (versus mere 'privilege' to 'drive'), and these will serve as my
material evidence if ever contested. Your cooperation has been appreciated,
but if I've erred, and there IS an existing controversy, by all means let me
know what it is so we can resolve this like gentlement. Further, if you object
to my Tender of Issue, namely the Right to Travel, I'd certainly enjoy your
views, lest I err in holding to a delusion of freedom we no longer retain as
the 'posterity' spoken of in the Constitutional Preamble of 1787.
Thanks again Mr. Munsen!
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
April 4, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Listed below are the answers to your three questions of April 2, 1986.
QUESTION 1: "Is ownership made imperfect, perhaps by contract, the buyer
somehow absent Property Right until a duty is rendered to the
State of Missouri?" ANSWER: No.
QUESTION 2: "Is there no requirement to first APPLY for something (license,
etc.) covered by the Motor Vehicle Statutes before becoming
subject to them?" ANSWER: No.
QUESTION 3: "Am I right? If not, PLEASE CORRECT ME." ANSWER: You are wrong.
The presumption that citizens of the State of Missouri know its
laws is founded on the well-settled rule that ignorance of the
law is no excuse for violating it.
Thank you for the compliment on my "candid" response to your previous letter
of February 10, 1986. Please allow me one observation. The eight months you
have spent in this quest could have been shortened considerably had you
refrained from convoluted analogies and, in your own words, "gotten to the
point a bit sooner with more honest and complete answers". Please feel free to
use any of my responses as "material evidence" when you are arrested for
driving an improperly registered motor vehicle in the State of Missouri.
Although the arresting officer and the court may find my letters
instructional, those officers will, no doubt, quickly come to the point with
an "honest and complete" request to see your Missouri certificate of
registration. Of course, we know that you will not have one, because you have
spent eight months gathering valuable "material evidence" from my office in
order to stall application for Missouri title and registration documents. You
may discover at that point that Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers are
also quite "candid".
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
--
May 1, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of April 4, but I was out
of state awhile and later taken ill.
And sorry you were confused by my analogies.
Re in "improperly registered motor vehicle": How can an item which is not
registered be registered improperly? And what is a "motor vehicle" by
unabridged statutory definition? California statutes define one as a
"...contrivance...used for commercial purposes...", which no doubt everyone is
presumed to know. But how we are presumed to know every esoteric statutory
definition and requirement is beyond me, although people are often willing to
subject themselves to the unknown and unknowable.
Now to your answers.
#1 Re: Perfect ownership. We agree - I think. Absolute owner has perfect title
before the State enters the picture. He has absolute property (right to
possess and use lawfully) which cannot be taken away by statute, absent
contract. You probably disagree, believing all statutes are Law, even if
contravening Constitutional and/or Biblical Law. Right or wrong?
#2 Re: Subject to statute by application. We disagree. But it seems only
reasonable that one must apply for a privilege or benefit to become subject to
the coorelative statutes, lest everyone, regardless of age, mental competence,
habitat, etc., be made subject to ALL existing statute. The application
secures a common law property element - signature - which is a sign of
voluntary consent, which creates a 'bond of law' binding the applicant.
Perhaps one of my "convoluted analogies" will help. Two similar vans approach
a weigh station, one pulling onto the scales, the other whistling on by. One
is subject to statutes not binding the other, the driver on the scales
"presumed to know" he's required to stop, the other "presumed to know" he's
not. Each is presumed to know the statutes governing the benefit they freely
sought by application. And when differences exist between them, one must
surely exist between an applicant (subject to law of contract) and a non-
applicant (subject to Law).
Trucks subject to weigh stations share several indicia in common, by the way:
1. They are owned by "corporations" (creatures of the state, thus subject to
control by their creator) - corporate status sought by application.
2. They use I.C.C. numbers - obtained by application.
3. They have commercial plates - by application.
4. The 'operators' are licensed - by application.
5. Neither the operator nor the companies absolutely own the truck, trailer or
contents. Others (e.g., banks) claim equitable ownership, these debts also
incurred by application.
The legal status of truckers APPEARS to be weight related, but other
considerations weigh more heavily, which is why motorhomes ignore weigh
stations while lighter vans may have to enter. Each is bound to the
appropriate statutes - by contract - which is why APPLICATION is essential to
cementing the nexus between the applicant and the statutes he is "presumed to
know". Isn't this reasonable?
#3 Re: Presumption of knowledge. We disagree. But we must surely agree that it
is IMPOSSIBLE to know ALL statute law. OK? And no man is bound to an
impossibility. Right? Binding people to such an absurdity would make statute
law itself absurd. Ignorance of God's law, however, is without excuse (Ro.
1:20), since it is written on the heart and inward parts (conscience?) of
Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31-34 and He. 8:8-10). This might be why we cannot
find a statute to assert the "well-settled rule" of presumption - a rule we
cannot find, but which came from the (Anglo-American) common law.
"Under the common law, a principle was adopted that ignorance of the law is
no excuse for a violation of law. (This principle is sometimes stated that
every person is presumed to know the law.) This principle was practical and
workable under the early common law which was based on the mores of the
people." Trial by Jury, Samuel W. McCart, Member of the District of Columbia
Bar, p. 16 (1964).
The "mores" of the people refers to our conscience (law in the heart) which
served as the foundation for our common law and the idea that a moral jury
would nullify bad law by voting their conscience. This principle was
'practical and workable' - once.
"Statute law brought in, and continues to bring in, new and sometimes
strange restraints and obligations. It is not possible any longer for
an intelligent and educated person to know all statute law - let alone
an illiterate or ignorant person." Ibid, p. 16.
So the practical and workable has become impossible. Mr. Munsen, I don't wish
to belabor this subject, nor to debate you by mail. But do we agree that there
is confusion in a system where a person is presumed to know the impossible,
while bound thereby? Otherwise, our correspondence suggests we are agreed as
follows:
WE CANNOT GET A REGISTRATION PLATE WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION, WHICH IN TURN, CANNOT BE OBTAINED WITHOUT FIRST GETTING A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BUT TO GET THIS, WE MUST FIRST SURRENDER THE TITLE -
WHICH NO ABSOLUTE OWNER CAN BE COMPELLED TO DO.
THUS WE RETAIN AND EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITH AUTOMOBILE, ETC., AND
HAVE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT WE HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT
HERE IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI, OR ELSEWHERE.
YOU CONSENTED TO THIS DETERMINATION - VIA TACIT PROCURATION. IF EXERCISING A
RIGHT TO TRAVEL WAS UNLAWFUL, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED ME OF THE CRIME AT
LAW (NOT ADMIRALTY/EQUITY/ETC.), AND SIMULTANEOUSLY STATED, "BRUCE G. MCCARTHY
DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL ON MISSOURI HIGHWAYS VIA AUTOMOBILE OR OTHER
SUCH METHOD OF CONVEYANCE."
Mr. Munsen, I again assure you that I feel neither bitterness nor rancor
towards you, your agency or the Highway Patrol. All of you perform an
essential service for the many who are subject to contract law (Admiralty,
Equity, etc.). Your pertinent questions and comments are appreciated, and I
certainly want to resolve any conflict or misunderstanding arising from this
correspondence.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
June 7, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Receiving no reply to my May 1, 1986 correspondence causes me to conclude
there is no existing controversy. We apparently concur; one's right to
absolute ownership of conveyance and right to travel are preserved, absent
contract (e.g., with Motor Vehicle Bureau) to mitigate them.
We recognize, however, most automobile "owners" have applied for bank credit/
debt, limited liability (insurance) - and a license (privilege) from the
State, to do what they otherwise could have done by right, were it not for
their self-imposed 'fetters'. So these people ("...those bound to Service for
a Term of Years..." - Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, U.S. Constitution)
waived Rights At Law, "choosing" your system of administrative statutes.
Absent any license/contract/benefit which would waive my Rights to Travel and
Absolute Ownership, these rights remain intact and inviolate - so long as they
are claimed. IF THIS IS NOT SO, PLEASE ADVISE, so I can correct/amend my
position.
I'm hoping to resolve all possible disputes with Missouri MVD first, believing
my connection to/with 'police enforced' MVD statutes begins by contract/
application for grant of privilege, license or benefit from MVD - or even
other agencies. To reconcile our differences on this point, please IDENTIFY
(select as many choices as you need) the NATURE of the body of law that you
administer:
a. Admiralty/Maritime
b. Law Merchant
c. Roman Civil Law
d. Anglo-American Common Law and/or Law of God
e. Equity
f. Other_______________________________________
Please help me resolve our differences, after which I'll compile and submit a
list of points/elements to show where we agree. This will narrow the issues,
and could save us considerable time later.
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with
him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the
judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
Mt. 5:25
Direct, clear and honest communication can avert serious disputes if we'll
take the time and make the effort. At any rate, I'd sure prefer (if I had my
'druthers) not to be delivered to the judge.
Thank you for your time and consideration Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
--
And there the matter rests.