Autos and Bills of Sale

this is just a verification post. A bill of sale OVERRIDES the state issued certificate of title doesnt it. In other words the bill of sale can be used to prove ownership vs the title?

i believe you are correct.& at least from the modicum of research i've done.


the MSO is the true "title" to the "place travel device."& it is surrendered to the state in exchange for registration & certificate of title.& the dealerships do this automatically (pavlov).


however, i think you have to go through some hoops to assert the MSO over the certificate of title & get the latter cancelled/voided/whathaveyou.


jon

[Ice]

As long as you have the "Bill of Sale" -- YOU WIN.& No need to go through any hoops.


&

[rushpat]

But if the true title was the MSO, and that is in the possession of the state (or a microfilm version since they destroyed it), how could a bill of sale from some guy who was driving it before (assuming this is a used car) show proof of ownership?

Wouldn't he be selling his usage?

[Ice]

No.& He&was also sold the car and therefore has a "bill of sale".& The MSO is not a bill of sale and does not determine ownership.& Proof of purchase is proof of ownership.


&

question for you ice:


considering a new car:& the MSO & original bill of sale (at time of purchase from a dealer) were surrendered to the state in exchange for certificate of title, registration, etc.& the "vehicle" was then sold to another party.


because the "owner" was actually the state prior to that sale (merely issuing a certificate of title, aka beneficial interest, the "seller" not holding actual title), doesn't any subsequent sale therefore require re-registration, etc., with the "real" owner (the state)?


i'm not sure i phrased that quite right, but i think you'll know what i'm askin...

[suijuris]

I have never heard of the state coming forward and saying "Oh, we impounded this car because we OWN it."

The true nature of the problem we are fighting may in fact be that the state owns the car, but I do not believe that they will ever make that arguement to support their actions. It will always be based on some code that has been violated.

Stop and think about it - how can they make a claim that they own the auto? They would have to then charge everyone who ever used it with grand theft auto, and anyone who ever sold the auto with fraud. You could then go back and sue whoever it was you bought the car from for the loss.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. The bill of sale is the rest. If in doubt, why not use public notice to give them a chance to dispute the title, as we do in other matters? If they do not dispute it, declare your own allodial title and file it with the county recorder, as you would a land patent.

Like Ice, I have to agree that the MSO is NOT a title any more than the 'certificate' you get from the state. As far as I know, iIt is simply a paper stating where the parts came from that were used to build the auto. If you had a statement from the contractor who built real estate stating where the lumber came from, does that mean that you hold title to the real estate?

Regards,
Sui Juris

sui juris, could it be the same as when you purchase a house? in other words, when we sign those legalize papers at the dealership on new vehicles, could it be we have purchased the vehicle out right and then authorized the dealership to transfer title from us to the state who then issues us a certificate when we pay the car off that basically says there is a title somewhere (certificate OF title). Now, regardless if this is all true, the argument is like everything else in redemption, redemption actually makes your remedy more complicated because they DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about even if its true. Stick to the simple things. Tell them its your car with a bill of sale or a& ucc3 attachment on the vehicle.

[suijuris]

Kgod,

Yeah, however you decide to demonstrate your ownership of the auto, it is up to them to rebut that. But what I was getting at is that I have never heard of the state debating OWNERSHIP. Rather, they are debating codes to justify their actions.

So I guess the question is - does documenting proper ownership of an auto remove you from their codes? Does it provide you a remedy that will be recognized on some level?

And what is the long term strategy, when one is traveling without state certificates, registration, licenses, and is intercepted by highway revenuers?

Just some things to mull over and discuss.
Sui Juris

sui juris,


interesting thoughts.


however, i'm not sure i am on your page there.


the state would never want to admit to true ownership - that would be letting the cat outta the bag.


'sides, who'd want to "rent" their vehicle after the scam is exposed?


second, it pays the state to have code violations ("revenue").


third, possession of TITLE would be 9/10ths of the law, not simple possession.& that's like saying to any thief, hey, if you steal my thing, then i guess its yours!& (extrapolate please, no cavaling on that point)


the state really doesn't care who trades the asset around - it knows there really is no "money" and therefore no property actually gets exchanged between buyer and seller, so it is secure in its position of title holder.


BUT, since it holds the real title to the vehicle, IT WILL attempt to enforce any & all code violations incurred by the vehicle/equitable title owner.


so, YES, if you can unequivocally PROVE that you are the true title holder & not just equitable title holder, then you COULD remove the "place travel device" from their codes.&


the king cannot tax what he does not hold or own.& right?


jon