Time: Tue Dec 16 16:39:48 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: auto insurance Cc: Bcc: jamoon@hgo.net References: The California Civil Code, for example, states, in plain English, that an "obligation" arises either from the operation of law, or from the contract of the parties, and from nothing else. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Then, it goes on to say that the ONLY obligation which arises from the operation of law is to avoid doing damage or injury to the person or property of others. So, the operation of law [sic] in California is, clearly, the common law, preserved in the California Civil Code. Therefore, the "obligation" to buy automobile insurance must arise from the "contract of the parties." What "contract" is that? Answer: it is the application for motor vehicle registration. Said application is forwarded to the DMV along with the MSO. We have located the precise Arizona statute which requires Arizona new car dealers to do so. It is very revealing that this is the ONLY mention of the term "manufacturer's statement of origin" anywhere in the entire Arizona DMV code. Now, we give thanks to the Most High for this gift of very powerful computers, because ... ... THERE is the break in the chain of possession! Let me give you an example which is directly parallel, in all respects. Microsoft software comes with a green, printed Certificate of Authenticity. Once that Certificate should become separated from the document on which it was originally affixed, the one holding that document -- in due course -- cannot prove that it came directly from Microsoft. The Certificate is in one place, and the document (and software that goes with it), are in another place. Hence, the law would render the current "holder-in-due-course" of the software, to be an unauthorized user of the documentation and software in question. Actually, he would be, more accurately, the "holder-in-UNdue-course," because the software (and documentation) are not his "due". As the green Certificate says: "This Certificate is your assurance that the software you obtained with your computer system is legally licensed from Microsoft Corporation." Now, if I were to sell my documentation with this Certificate of Authenticity affixed, then the buyer would become the new "holder-in-due-course," and he would have this assurance passed along to him. If, however, I were to sell my documentation WITHOUT this Certificate of Authenticity affixed, then the buyer would NOT have this assurance passed along ("assigned") to him. This much should be fairly obvious to everyone, with or without legalese to prove it. Now, back to auto MSO's: the Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity is directly parallel (in pari materia) to the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin for any new car or truck. By separating the MSO from the new car or truck, and requiring the new car/truck dealer to send the MSO to the DMV along with the application for temporary registration, the new car buyer is not the holder-in-due-course of the MSO and, therefore, that buyer is not the true owner in allodium. The State has become the holder-in-due-course of the MSO and, thus, of a controlling legal interest in the new car or truck. From that "interest" it follows that the State can compel specific performance to protect (read "indemnify") that "interest". It is not a lawful interest, however; it is, at best, a colorable interest. It is for these reasons that any challenge to "expired registration" and similar "violations" must begin by suing out the MSO on the car or truck in question. By demanding that the State produce a certified copy of it, or an admission that it was destroyed (after it was microfiched), you will put the State in a very difficult bind, because they will need to prove how it was they came to possess it in the first place. It is a fraudulent (unlawful) conversion, just as if someone were to remove the Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity from new software documentation. It is fraudulent because there was not full disclosure of the "voluntary" nature of the application for registration, and of the fact that dealers routinely forward the MSO to the State Department of "Motor Vehicles," without informing buyers of this practice. I hope this helps. Think about that Certificate of Authenticity and its direct parallels to the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (aka Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO"). This certainly helped me to clarify my thinking on this particular matter. /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com At 06:48 AM 12/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 09:59 AM 12/13/97 -0800, you wrote: > >>In California, insurance is mandatory, unless you can show proof that >>you are wealthy enough to instantly fork over $300,000 (I think) in >>cash to pay for whoever you injured in a wreck. >> >>And, starting just recently, the registration laws were changed: you >>must now show proof of insurance or other "financial responsibility" >>When you register your car every year, or else no tags. >> >>And third strike is, in some CA cities, cars without current tags, >>can be impounded by police... even if sitting in your driveway. >> >>What a country... >>Steve Maher >> >Same here in Indiana. It would be a great country if we would stop kissing >politicians' asses for favors. > > >Frank Ernest >A Traditional Astrologer >Horary and Mundane Astrology >http://www.thepoint.net/~fjernest > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail