Time: Sat Oct 11 14:04:05 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20019; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:56:11 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22383; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:55:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:54:44 -0700 To: snetnews@world.std.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Militias Create Big Hurdle for National ID Plan Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I got "branded" militia last year, but that was before everybody and their mothers (and fathers) thought to read the law concerning age eligibility. I am too old (at 49). On the question of driver's licenses, vehicle plates, and/or registration tags, you must first read the Commerce Clause: Congress can regulate commerce among the several states. It does NOT say Congress can regulate commerce among the inhabitants of the several states. The Framers certainly knew the difference between these two constructions. U.S. v. Lopez, in 1995 has begun to crack the iceberg case law that has grown up around the Commerce Clause. It was about time this happened. Now, in California, which is the largest in population, there is a law in their Civil Code which says that the ONLY obligation which is imposed by operation of law, is to avoid doing damage or injury to others, or to their property. All other obligations derive from the contract of the parties. ALL OTHER OBLIGATIONS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION!! This means that driver's licenses, vehicle plates, and/or registration tags all amount to contracts which Citizens enter with the corporate States (not "states"). But, a Union state cannot license the exercise of any Rights; and both traveling and owning property (like a car or truck) are both Rights, not privileges. So, where does this leave Us? Well, if you have a license/plate/tag, the cops take the position that you are in a contract with the State, and the courts take the position that you are subject to the municipal laws of that State, just as if you were wholly employed by that State (the corporate one, not the de jure state -- small "s"). The B-I-G rub comes from knowing that the company which manufactured your car/truck, had to make a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO") along with it. 99.99999% of all dealers convey this MSO to the corporate States as part of any new car or truck sale, and the mountain of paperwork it generates. This "conveyance" (of the MSO) to the corporate State is a fraudulent conveyance, because it is rarely, if ever, disclosed to the buyer. Once the corporate State comes into possession of this MSO, it becomes a "holder-in-due-course," which gives that State a legal "interest" in the new car/truck. Once the State becomes a holder-in-due-course of commercial paper, it has a legal interest in the new car or truck, and it retains that legal interest, even if the car/truck is re-sold. The new buyer(s) are really just "leasing" the car/truck from the corporate State (although the term "leasing" is being used very loosely here). This legal interest must also be insured, because the "operator" is actually an agent of the corporate State, and that State needs to indemnify itself against any mechanical failures and/or operator errors. So, the insurance requirement follows from the State's need to protect itself against giant law suits, if its licensed operators should have an accident, intentional or otherwise. Your insurance contract is being paid to indemnify the corporate State, and also to protect you against loss, theft, or personal injury (yours or others'). So, if you want to break the original link between "drivers" (licensed operators) and "vehicles" (registered cars and trucks), you must begin with the MSO, and initially use administrative remedies to locate it, demand exhibition of it, and also demand delivery of it to the current owner, or, in the alternative, to demand an admission that it has been destroyed and/or the microfiche is not available or can't/won't be certified. This will put the corporate State(s) in a real pickle, because if they ADMIT they have the MSO, they are admitting to being in possession of stolen property (read "unlawful conversion"). We use terms like "unlawful conversion" and "exemplary damages," instead of "theft" and "punishment," because euphemisms are a favorite courtroom tactic -- they soften the blow often dealt by the raw, unadulterated truth. So, the wise Citizen (BIG "C") will present a lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND for production of the MSO, with a grace period beyond which the corporate State is legally estopped from ever producing it, due to all the cases which have held that silence activates estoppel. Confer at "estoppel, equitable" in Black's Law Dictionary for the real scoop, in raw legalese. Super Duper Law Scooper?? Now, THERE's a product which will sell a million: comes in several sizes -- big, bigger, and steam shovel. The key is to realize that, if the corporate States insist on treating licenses/plates/tags as commercial contracts, then they MUST abide by the rules of equity (read "contract"), not Law, and not Admiralty. Equitable estoppel is available in all contract situations, particularly when one party discovers fraud, and then sets about to carry his/her burden of proving that fraud (which is, by law, his/her actual burden to carry). The beauty of the estoppel rule is that the fraud is proven, if the other party falls silent in the face of a fraud allegation. Silence is also a fraud, where there is a legal or a moral duty to speak, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel. Thus, you can carry your burden of proving fraud, also by reference to their solemn Oath of Office; no oath -- then no authority against a Citizen, whatsoever, and fraud has been committed from the outset (ab initio, in Latin). The fundamental problem that has arisen lately is that the Oath of Office has never been held to be a competent waiver of the Right to remain silent; therefore, government employees still retain their fundamental Right to remain silent in the face of a criminal complaint, notwithstanding whatever LeRoy Schweitzer and/or Elizabeth Broderick may have told you (before they went to jail). You all remember Mark Fuhrman? He was a classic, and the most recent, case in point. He took the Fifth, and it stuck! None of this has anything to do with militias, however. Did you hear me even mention "militia" after the first paragraph above? Answer: NO! But, Militia Brand Serial is the new "Juden" tag being exploited by the criminal element in government, or CEG (to borrow a great phrase coined by Dr. N.A. Scott, of Oceanside, California). This Serial has been blamed now for blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, and the legitimate militia organizations have been deliberately infiltrated by government agents, who have persuaded ignorant and naive people, like Ray Looker, to do dumb things, like accept $50,000 cash, in return for the blue prints to a federal building in West Virginia, or to tender a phony "commercial warrant" to pay off their home loans, when it is quite common knowlege that "bad checks" very often end up in the offices of the FBI, or local police. So, if you are, in fact, bona fide militia, under the supreme Law of our Land, then you are not likely to fare much better than did the oppressed Jews in World War II Germany (not to be confused with certain rich Jews who helped oppress their fellow man in that horrible process). Nor were Jews the only ones who were oppressed, or doing the oppression. Dresden was a Christian town, and the Allies incinerated it with fire bombs; if the fire didn't kill you, the lack of oxyden did. It is simply an old technique, called "guilt by association," but the irony is that there is no guilt, and no real association, as such, except the guilt that comes with the "association" called the criminal element in government (read "extortion rackets galore"). Erg, anybody? That is all, for now. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com At 03:37 PM 10/11/97 -0400, you wrote: > >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: bornfree@dscga.com (Repeal Fingerprints) >To: bornfree@dscga.com >Date: 97-10-11 00:07:13 EDT > >Dear CRFL Friends, > Well, I guess any of us who won't comply with the new biometric DL are >now >considered "militia" members. This article was sent by the Alabama FP >coalition. Looks like we are about to be villified. I thought we were >privacy advocates. I could say we were trying to hold our elected officals >to their contract (the Constitution) but I think that also makes you a >"militia" member. > >DC > >>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:46:59 -0500 >>From: mcdonald <mcdonald@hiwaay.net> >>To: FP-Fight the Fingerprint <fingerprint@usa.net.org> >>Subject: FP-Militias Create Big Hurdle for National ID Plan >VAA14383 >> >>================================================================== >> News from the "Fight the Fingerprint" Email List! >> Reply to: mailto:mcdonald@hiwaay.net >>Type FP-JOIN in the SUBJECT to join, type FP-REMOVE to be removed. >>================================================================== >> >>It appears that "militias" are creating a substantial problem for >>several of the states' Departments of Motor Vehicles. Apparently, >>significant numbers of "militia" members, or their supporters, are >>collectively refusing to get driver's licenses. This growing phenomena >>will be the focus of discussion at an upcoming event sponsored by >>"The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)". >>The event is being promoted as the "Driver Licensing and Control / >>Financial Responsibility Fall Workshop". >> >>The Association's Web Page states that the AAMVA "represents the >>interests of U.S. and Canadian motor vehicle agency administrators and >>law enforcement officials in the pursuit of safer North American >>roadways and quality driver and vehicle administration." >> >>Sheila Prior, (a workshop coordinator), said the AAMVA found it >>necessary to address the militia issue due to the fact that increasing >>numbers of militia supporters are refusing to comply with requirements >>associated with obtaining driver's licenses. >> >>According to the schedule of events, Missouri's Attorney General, David >>Hansen, will advise the nation's licensing officials concerning the >>"militia issue" on Saturday, November 1, 1997 between 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. >>(The "Militia Licensing" issue is the top item listed on the AAMVA's >>Internet Web Page.) >> >>And, later, on that same day, Commander Kerry Kirkpatrick from Iowa, >>will present "Defusing Threats of Violence". [Remember, this event is a >>"driver's license workshop" -- Why do driver's license administrators >>need to be advised on how to deal with "threats of violence"? Could it >>be that U.S. citizens are not expected to adapt easily to the level of >>"control" that will be discussed at this "Control" workshop?] >> >>Other topics to be addressed will include information on the new federal >>driver's licenses and identification cards standardization requirements >>that were imposed by congress in the Immigration Reform Act of 1996, >>Public Law 104-208. (See note 1 below.) State licensing administrators >>will, no doubt, be instructed on how to best go about acquiring funding >>to implement the new federal requirements. The regulations, now being >>drafted by the U.S. DOT, will, according to sources, impose the >>requirement that all states MUST obtain a Social Security number from >>ALL licensees and that the SSN must be incorporated onto the license >>card in a "machine readable" form. >> >>[A recent U. S. Postal instructional video warns Postal workers to be >>suspicious of, and to report on a special form, anyone who requests to >>purchase a Postal Money Order but resists providing their Social >>Security number. I have seen this official video. Is it possible that >>those people who refuse to divulge their SSN upon application for a >>driver's license are being categorically classified as a "militia >>members" by the AAMVA and the state licensing officials?] >> >>Also being discussed on Friday will be the topics: "Electronics >>Verification of Driver's Licenses" and, "Using Current Technology - >>Symbol Technology". The Symbol Technology subject is to be presented by >>the president of the National Association of Convenience Stores. >>[I assume that "symbol technology" in association with "electronic >>verification" encompasses such things as fingerprints, biometric, and/or >>bar codes - though I am, admittedly, not certain of this.] >> >>On Sunday, November 2, David Boylard, (from West Virginia), will discuss >>"Facial Recognition Systems". [West Virginia, in 1997, became the first >>state to incorporate "facial recognition technology" into their >>driver's license issuance process.) >> >>In summation, the whole purpose of the "workshop" is to educate the >>licensing officials on the Association's interpretation of the newly >>enacted federal laws. The officials will be advised on how to most >>effectively deal with the problems that will be created for the states >>by implementing these new driver's licensing/national ID requirements - >>of course, the Association would cease to exist if these "problems" >>weren't being perpetually created so as to provide a reason to sponsor >>these types of resort-hosted workshops! >> >>The workshop is scheduled for October 31 - November 2, 1992. Non-members >>may attend. The registration fee is $475.00 per attendee. The location >>is: >> >>Hyatt Regency Incline Village (Lake Tahoe) >>Country Club Drive at Lakeshore >>P.O. Box 3239 >>Incline Village, NV 89450-3239 >> >>[You suppose this might be some sort of resort?] >>[http://www.tahoe.com/Incline/index.html] >> >>Phone: (702) 832-1234; Fax: (702) 831-7508 >> >>Information contacts for AAMVA are: >> >>Sheila Prior — DL&C/FR, >>Linda Lewis — CSE: (703) 522-420000 (sic) >> >>Appropriately, a Halloween dinner will be provided on Friday night, >>October 31. >> >>http://www.aamva.org/fallworkshops/dlc.htm >> >>Note 1: In 1996 congress passed Public Law 104-208 which included >>measures intended to control and crack down on illegal immigration. >>Opposing lawmakers called the measure an implementation of a "nation ID >>card". The new law requirements that the states must standardize >>"identification documents" such as driver's licenses cards. >>The law states that the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) >>along with The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators >>(AAMVA) shall generate the specific "regulations" that the states would >>(presumably) have to conform to. The proposed regulations were due to be >>completed by the end of September 1997, however, that deadline was not >>met by DOT. [The Regulations will probably be christened at the fall >>workshop - opinion.] The law states that beginning in January of 2000, >>U. S. Government agencies WILL NOT ACCEPT any state issued >>identification document unless it contains the person's Social Security >>number and also incorporates a hologram or other approved "security" >>feature. [See note 2] >> >> >> >>Note 2: In 1997 the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case - >> >>"Printz v. The United States": >> >>"The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and >>contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute >>federal laws is unconstitutional." >> >>"We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we >>concluded categorically in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 >>(1992): 'The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or >>administer a federal regulatory program.' Id., at 188." >> >>"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or >>enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot >>circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers >>directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring >>the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' >>officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or >>enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether >>policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or >>benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with >>our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment >>of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed." >> >>"It is so ordered. (Issued June 27, 1997.)" >> >>This Supreme Court ruling is not listed in the agenda as one of the >>topics to be discussed during any of the workshop sessions. >> >> >>P.S.: Does anyone know of anything that the militias are not responsible >>for causing? >> >>================================================================== >> _____ >>___ / __ \_________ FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT! >> _\._\________) >> ( _)____) Please visit the Web Site at: >>___ ( _)____) >> \___( _)___) http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml >> >>================================================================== >> >> >**************************************************************************** >****** >ATTENTION: Our next meeting is October 20th. We will meet at Morrison's >Cafeteria on N. Druid Hills Rd. @ 7:00pm. Please join us! >**************************************************************************** >****** > > STOP THE NATIONAL ID CARD AND ITS DATABASES NOW!!!!!! > VISIT OUR NEW WEB SITE http://www.atlantainfoguide.com/repeal/ > Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law > 5446 Peachtree Industrial Blvd. > Suite 133 > Atlanta, GA 30341 > 404-250-8105 > > > > > > > > > > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: JAdam2594@aol.com > > > =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail