Certificate of Title v. Muniment of Title

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Farmer: you quoted the text of some code(?) with reference to your emphasized text above. May I inquire as to where this code(?) can be found? Or did I simply overlook an earlier post where you might have placed a reference thereto?

I quoted from the 1949 Geneva Convention on Intl Road Traffic:

http://www.geocities.com/bkkriders/law/unc/road1949.htm

I would like to repeat that this is not a code- it is an international law governing the interpretation and harmonization of standards. A convention.

Not being a code, there are no infractions or violations. You can't get a ticket under this convention.

But it shows that the concept of "nonresident" includes drivers who can legally drive w/o a formal permit, and what an "IDP" actually does.

Originally Posted by gldskr

It has nothing to do with permits and conditions. Its about jurisdiction and the controlling law. Freemen operate under Foreign Law, that is, foreign to that of the corporation.

I think thats exactly what is being expressed here- this Foreign Law, outside the corporation, regulates the rights and immunities by requiring certain conditions.

To drive around in public, there has to be accepted civil liability for the self-propelled device.

There needs to be documented ownership.

The auto needs a flag to identify status and activity.

The machine has to be in good working order, for safety.

And the driver has to be competent, capable (and sober)- and at least 18.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I quoted from the 1949 Geneva Convention on Intl Road Traffic:

http://www.geocities.com/bkkriders/law/unc/road1949.htm

I would like to repeat that this is not a code- it is an international law governing the interpretation and harmonization of standards. A convention.

Not being a code, there are no infractions or violations. You can't get a ticket under this convention.

But it shows that the concept of "nonresident" includes drivers who can legally drive w/o a formal permit, and what an "IDP" actually does.

Like this?

[Jerry Pitts]

I'm sorry Farmer. My error and bad choice of words. Yes! I make those same types of mistake. I was merely desiring to know the source of the language that you had cited. Nothing more.. I might add, that, in reference to international law, I am in agreement with you, as the way things are working in this secular world, it would appear that if you are not a member of this state, then you have to be a member of another state... which I rightly have cognizance, and to which I am making steady progress in gaining freedom through the exercise of both International and spiritual laws.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I quoted from the 1949 Geneva Convention on Intl Road Traffic:

http://www.geocities.com/bkkriders/law/unc/road1949.htm

I would like to repeat that this is not a code- it is an international law governing the interpretation and harmonization of standards. A convention.

Not being a code, there are no infractions or violations. You can't get a ticket under this convention.

But it shows that the concept of "nonresident" includes drivers who can legally drive w/o a formal permit, and what an "IDP" actually does.



I think thats exactly what is being expressed here- this Foreign Law, outside the corporation, regulates the rights and immunities by requiring certain conditions.

To drive around in public, there has to be accepted civil liability for the self-propelled device.

There needs to be documented ownership.

The auto needs a flag to identify status and activity.

The machine has to be in good working order, for safety.

And the driver has to be competent, capable (and sober)- and at least 18.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Mark

Like this?

Not quite. On the reverse side, where all the long talk is printed, there is reference at the last sentence that stipulates that the holder will adhere to the 'positive laws and regulations of the....' country state where he/she is currently located.

Regulations are not law, but you have agreed to abide by them. Consequently, if the DMV of a particular state has a regulation that affects a man or womans presumption under the law relating to driving, then you are subject to that regulation.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Mark

Like this?

That looks like an IDP. The question is going to be- "what is your state of residence?" So keep in mind there are only 2 possibilities, as Jerry Pitts well observed:

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

in reference to international law, I am in agreement with you, as the way things are working in this secular world, it would appear that if you are not a member of this state, then you have to be a member of another state...

if you aint local, you must be foreign. Only 2 choices.

And all foreign is equal in principle. Just like all local is equal.

[netwrkranger]

It seems the Bill of Sale is what transfers title from one party to another.

Source: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MCOs.htm (Larry Becraft)

The MCO argument is another crazy idea promoted by people who refuse to perform any research. When a car manufacturer builds a car, that company owns it and has title to it. "Title" to personal property like a car is not some document; it is that invisible "bundle of rights" which one has when he owns something. That "bundle of rights" excludes all other parties from possession of the property in question. When a car is purchased, the buyer delivers money to the seller and acquires title to the car, and that title means that he can exclude all other persons from possession of that car. A "bill of sale" is nothing but a document which evidences the fact that title has passed from one party to another. This "bundle of rights" can be divided, and this happens when a car is purchased via financing provided by a bank or other financial institution. When this happens, the bank has an interest in the car and that interest is protected via contractual provisions as well as a financing statement (UCC Form 1) which is filed at a designated State office to show to the rest of the world that the bank has an interest as a secured party in that vehicle. If the loan is paid, the bank's interest is extinguished; if not, it can claim possession of the car.

Certificates of title are nothing but the State's "answer" to the problem of car theft. "Certificate" means according to Black's law dictionary "a written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality complied with." States have enacted laws to provide for "certificates of title" for cars which are issued and given to car owners; they are nothing more than further evidence of ownership of a car and this helps reduce the incidence of car theft; but such a certificate is not "title" to a car. And neither is the MCO.

[netwrkranger]

EQUITABLE TITLE. A right in the party to whom it belongs to have the legal title transferred to him; or the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.
See also Equitable ownership.

Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Larry Becraft

Certificates of title are nothing but the State's "answer" to the problem of car theft. "Certificate" means according to Black's law dictionary "a written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality complied with." States have enacted laws to provide for "certificates of title" for cars which are issued and given to car owners; they are nothing more than further evidence of ownership of a car and this helps reduce the incidence of car theft; but such a certificate is not "title" to a car. And neither is the MCO.

And he only charged 500/hr for that opinion.

The title being certified is for a motor vehicle. So he is actually correct:

nothing more than further evidence of ownership...but such a certificate is not "title" to a car

tricksy.

[netwrkranger]

That is messed up that the equitable owner is considered the true owner of the property in equity even though the legal title is held by someone else.

=(

Then you are forced, coerced into registering .... this sounds like a nice setup for a claim of constructive fraud to me ....

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by gldskr

There is a myth among the paytriot community that an MSO is the magical title to a vehicle. This is utter nonsense. Whether the MSO transfers from the dealer or the manufacturer makes no difference, it is a statement of facts, nothing more. It is used by the state to determine the date of inital registration, if and when that occurs. It is supplementary evidence that the state uses when it issues a CoT. As the issuer of the certificate, the state has the obligation to insure that which it certifies.

Title does not transfer until all elements of a contract have been satisfied. The documentary evidence of this transfer, the muniment of title, is the bill of sale. For personal property, this is the stongest muniment of title there is.

gldskr

CORRECT! As per the UCC, the MSO serves as a Bill of Lading and is used from one commercial entity to another. An item not used in commerce is considered household goods where as a Bill of Lading is not utilized.