Time: Mon Jul 21 16:10:58 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA07916
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:25:59 -0700 (MST)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19124;
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:18:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:17:57 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: insurance is admiralty
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970721095647.21075B-100000@cor>
Yes, all insurance is admiralty, because the
actuarial "risk" is spread across all policy
holders, and the Supreme Court has held that
interstate insurance companies are involved
in interstate commerce, because the policy
holders are typically spread across the
several states of the Union. I don't have
that cite right now, but Bill Medina can
supply it. He is in Sunnyvale, California.
This is an outgrowth of the Erie Railroad
case in 1930. Again, read "The Two United
States and the Law" in the Supreme Law Library
at the URL just below my name here:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 01:52 PM 7/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Ralph wrote:
>>
>> > Unless you are conducting commerce with your car you cannot be conducting
>> > interstate commerce.
>>
>> > > At 08:49 AM 7/20/97 -0700, you [Paul Andrew Mitchell] wrote:
>>
>> > > >This is the main reason why registering your car
>> > > >thrusts you into "interstate" commerce, whether
>> > > >you like it or not.
>>
>> Don't you conduct commerce with your car when you purchase insurance
>> on it, finance it using public (bank) credit, or lease it from your
>> State of whatever Division of Motor Vehicles?
>
>
> Oh please, the car must be used in the conduct of COMMERCE DIRECTLY.
>
>
>
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>>
>
>
>
>Please read the following letter sent to motor vehicle admin in Maryland.
>
>Dear Maryland State Secratary of Transportation, Mr. David L. Winstead,
>
>
>It has recently come to my attention that in the State of Maryland that the
>State owns my car (and everyone else's too) via the certificate of
>origination and that we are simply "leasing" it back from the State via our
>recurring registration fees. Is this the case and if so when did this first
>occur and where are the statutes reflecting same, and where did I sign away
>my ownership of my car ? Is this ANYWHERE on the title of the car ? Is
>there an equivalent of an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) control
>number anywhere on any of the MVA documents advising us of our signing away
>ownership of our cars and pointing back to REQUIRED statutes prescribing the
>same and if not when are you going to require such upgrade of MVA
>documents/forms to include reference numbers back to statutes enabling such
>practices so as to give informed consent to the citizens of Maryland
>regarding their private property, or is it not our private property anymore,
>i.e. we never really owned our cars in the first place since this
>certificate of origination pilfery commenced ?
>
>Also, while on the subject of MVA/Transportation, it has come to my
>attention that the proposed plan re: the Dynometer treadmill emmisions test
>of cars to be coupled with a program of "pollution" credits, whereby for
>each car that the state removes from the street, a "pollution" credit will
>be generated and given to some other organization. These credits can be
>traded amongst industries like PEPCO (Potomac Electric), BG&E Baltimore Gas
>and Electric, and other polluters almost like currency and in fact can opt
>to "spend" these credits INSTEAD of cleaning up their pollution. So
>regarding the Dyno test for citizens car and the cars that it will
>subsequently remove from the road, who will get the so called "pollution"
>credit, how many credits per car and why would anyone BUT the car owner get
>the credit. Oh thats right YOU (the state) own my car, now it makes sense,
>how dumb of me, guess thats why I am a peon, and the State is so powerful
>these days. Where are and what are the statutes governing this policy.
>
>Also regarding the Dyno test and all emissions testing for that matter, the
>4th amendment to the Constitution says probable cause must exist before
>searchs and a warrant signed by a judge must accompany same and EACH search,
>in light of this how is it that the State can summons us to appear at our
>expense and submit to such violation of the 4th amendment and with the dyno
>we even have to turn our vehicle over to a state employee who is indemnified
>against all damages. This combined with the "pollution" credits which will
>be generated out of same program and awarded to multibillion dollar
>industries who benefit from each car crushed at our expense and who can then
>pollute for FREE and the fact that STATE owned BUSES and TRUCKS blowing
>thick columns of BLACK SMOKE are not required to submit when they should as
>they are state owned. So unless a Police Officer sees my car blowing dirty
>exhaust or smells it, WHERE is the probable cause. Now if you say, well that
>is too difficult, think about this, how do you know I dont have stolen money
>in my trunk, YOU DONT, but that doesnt mean we allow searches of everyone's
>trunk just because people STEAL, UNLESS there is PROBABLE CAUSE and a
>WARRANT !!! It would be perfectly reasonable for an officer to pull over
>ANY of the grossly polluting trucks and even cars, some you can smell and
>some you can see, issue a warrant for that car to appear. That is the
>proper way. Now if it appears to not be convienent to you, when has that
>EVER been a reason to violate some ones rights ??!!
>
>Now I am beginning to see it all, "correct" me if I am RIGHT, the reason our
>4th amendment doesnt apply here is that it is NOT OUR CAR !!! Is that it ?
>Is that the same reason that the Supremem Court has ruled (yesterday) that
>Police Officers can order not just the driver, BUT all passengers, WITHOUT
>Probable Cause or a warrant, out of a vehcile ? Is that the same reason
>that Maryland has ruled to allow Police Officers to stop people for
>SUSPISION of not wearing a Seat Belt. Doesnt this give a police officer the
>ability to stop a car AND order ALL passengers out at WILL ?? How can a
>police officer tell if someone else is NOT wearing a belt in moving traffic
>without endangering MANY peoples lives ? Is this why President Clinton has
>moved to implement a system by which ALL new drivers licensees MUST submit
>to a BLOOD and URINE TEST ? Doesnt ALL this render the 4th Amendment
>MEANINGLESS ? If not how not ? Where does it still have meaning ?
>
>Is all this because these are NOT OUR CARS due to the state owning them
>through the certificate of origination ?
>
>Since when did our Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to freedom of Movement
>(non-Commercial, we are NOT talking taxi's, commercial trucking/delivery
>which SHOULD be regulated and licensed) become a State granted/revoked
>PRIVILEGE ? And how did you (the state) end up owning all OUR cars !!!
>
> Respectfully, Ralph
>
> c/o ralph@TeamInfinity.com
> P.O. BOX 952 Greenbelt, MD 20770
>
>
>P.S. please, where you can, provide the statutes re: the Origination
>Certificate being owned (thus the car) by the state and the statutes
>enabling this. Also the dyno/pollution credit racket schema would be
>appreciated too, with accompanying statutes and architects of same.
>
>
>One last note, the Republican's (Saurebrey/KEMP) proposed ROAD SIDE
>Emissions Testing via remote sensors and cameras with (OCR) Optical
>Character Recognition on Highway Onramps is a COMPLETELY ORWELLIAN
>PROPOSITION to be rejected without further consideration. OCR would enable
>the state to monitor ALL individuals comings and goings. What is your
>position here ?
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail