Title/Registration/MSO

[SKYGZR]

You all gotta read this exchange,,,BRILLIANT!!

**COPY/PASTE***

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]

full exchange here:

http://www.svpvril.com/vehicle.html

[Ice]

Excellent reading.

It is a shame that folks could not be convinced to deny the State to compel them to enter into such absurd contracts ("waiver of rights") and relinquish all rights in their lawfully owned property, substituting those rights with mere "privileges".

Fear of the "gun", "kidnapping" and "imprisonment" is the ultimate intimidation which results in the oppression of the People.

And the State would claim that it is a "voluntary" oppression.

Ice

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Ice

Excellent reading.


Fear of the "gun", "kidnapping" and "imprisonment" is the ultimate intimidation which results in the oppression of the People.

And the State would claim that it is a "voluntary" oppression.

Ice

Not only excellent, but essential.

I have been under the "gun."

I have been placed in chains and "kidnapped," at the end of the "gun," with an explicit caveat that the "gun" would indeed be applied immediately with deadly force by direct intent if I were to deviate in the least from absolute conformance to direct compulsion; I have been subjected to involuntary "imprisonment" under the "gun."

I committed no crime, but had merely engaged in unalienable rights specifically reiterated in Article I of the "Articles and Amendments in addition to..." "this Constitution for the United States of America."

I have fear, but this, perhaps, can be overcome, or even used as a means to action.

What cannot be overcome is the utter impossibility of meeting the presumption of full and complete knowledge of the full letter and extent of "the Law."

To deny that this is an impossibility is an absolute absurdity, and is shown to be such under Laws of Logic (see Booles on Logic).

One cannot, under the same set of maxims of Law, that are claimed to state that ignorance of the law is no excuse, be compelled to perform that which is an impossibility, simply because performance of an impossibility IS impossible, and that fact is LAW by definition.

Yet it is this very illogic and impossibility that brings forth circumstance wherein the gun is unlawfully (see the "Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States...") employed as absolute compulsion under the Law of Neccesity which is stated as a Law which knows no Law, and thus is no Law, but is activity without Law.

My first step can only be to inform those outlaws who rule in treason only with the "gun" that I may/shall submit only under threat, duress and coercion, and in no way voluntarily, and certainly in full knowledge that I am, or presume to be, without full disclosure of any nature and cause for the application of force of violence.

[Codee]

Sec. 80105. Title and rights affected by negotiation

(a) Title. - When a negotiable bill of lading is negotiated -
(1) the person to whom it is negotiated acquires the title to the goods that - (A) the person negotiating the bill had the ability to convey to a purchaser in good faith for value; and
(B) the consignor and consignee had the ability to convey to such a purchaser; and
(2) the common carrier issuing the bill becomes obligated directly to the person to whom the bill is negotiated to hold possession of the goods under the terms of the bill the same as if the carrier had issued the bill to that person.
(b) Superiority of Rights. - When a negotiable bill of lading is negotiated to a person for value in good faith, that person's right to the goods for which the bill was issued is superior to a seller's lien or to a right to stop the transportation of the goods. This subsection applies whether the negotiation is made before or after the common carrier issuing the bill receives notice of the seller's claim. The carrier may deliver the goods to an unpaid seller only if the bill first is surrendered for cancellation
(c) Mortgagee and Lien Holder Rights Not Affected. - Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this chapter does not limit a right of a mortgagee or lien holder having a mortgage or lien on goods against a person that purchased for value in good faith from the owner, and got possession of the goods immediately before delivery to the common carrier.

[macerico]

An interesting but very long read.

Of course, the key to that may be living someplace with no DL and no SSN on record. I think the DL could make you bound to the certificate of title issue.