Ticket-Blinker/insurance

[gldskr]

Like the one associated with the MSO and Senate Report #43.

Is the MSO a title or simply a statement? From whence does it derive its authority to become a title? Is it a certified statement or just run of the mill? What's the difference?

These are, of course, irrelevant questions as the MSO has nothing whatsoever to do with who owns your private property. Private property is determined by who holds the receipt, the bill of sale, the actual title. The culmination of a contract.

Likewise with a Certificate of title. What is a certificate? Who issues it? For what purpose?

It revolves around a registration scheme, and what is the purpose of this scheme? Taxation!

The MSO is simply a statement, not certified, as that has liabilities attached, that the vehicle in question has never been registered. But the question remains, registered as what, and who makes the determination?

If you are one of the sheeple you will, of course, register your vehicle as a motor vehicle. You still retain title, but you enter into a contract to tax yourself. The state has no incentive to own your depreciating property, it wants only that which is due Caesar, as per your contract.

If one delves into the meaning of Certificate, you will find that it is in essense an insurance policy issued by the one issueing the certificate. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

The corp. state enacts a taxation scheme called registration. It issues a Certificate of Title ( an insurance policy ) for the benefit of the lienholder. To follow the vehicle so that the interests of the lienholder are maintainted and taxes are paid. Without such insurance the state has no standing, hence jurisdiction is lost.

It is the Application for Certificate of Title and Registration that gives them standing. The registration scheme is for motor vehicles only. If you apply within that jurisdiction why should you be surprised that their rules are being enforced against you? It is not they that do it to you, out of ignorance you do it to yourself.

As to Senate Report #43. Much has been theorized about this report. That its substance may have been codified in subsequent statutes is irrelevant as that is a jurisdictional issue, and those who know will be able to discern its nuances.

The right to travel doesn't depend upon Supreme Court cites, those are factual, it depends upon contractual terms that may or may not have been breached, those we ignorantly volunteer into.

gldskr