Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on July 17, 1998 at 16:14:28:
In Reply to: Motion to dismiss Traffic Ticket on US Constitutional grounds posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on July 16, 1998 at 18:12:52:
Here is the letter to the Texas Attorney General,
demanding exhibition of all lawful statutory and
constitutional authorities whereby new car dealers
are compelled to convey the MSO to the State DOT:
[begin NOTICE AND DEMAND]
Office of Attorney General
Attention: Mr. Dan Morales
State Capitol Building
State of Texas
c/o USPS Post Office Box 12548
Subject: Lawful Authority(s) to Convey MSO [sic]
to Texas Dept. of Transportation ("DOT")
Dear Attorney General:
Formal NOTICE AND DEMAND are hereby served upon your
office, to exhibit a certified copy of all lawful
legislative and/or constitutional authority(s),
if any, by which new car dealers within Texas state
are compelled to convey the original Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin ("MSO"), (also known as the
Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin), into the
permanent possession, control, and custody of the
Texas Department of Transportation, upon the first
sale of a new car or truck within Texas state [sic].
See the Tenth Amendment, in chief; also, 31 CFR
51.2 and 52.2 ("State" and "state").
Said certified copy(s) must be delivered to the
following United States Post Office no later than
5:00 p.m. (17:00) on May 31, 1998, via first class
United States Mail, no signature required:
Supreme Law Firm
Attention: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
c/o general delivery at:
2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776
See USPS Publication #221 for the proper format to use
with foreign addresses. We reserve the Right to refuse
U.S. mail which is not properly addressed, and thus
not properly served. See Daly v. The National Life
Insurance Company of the USA, Indiana Supreme Court
(1878), paraphrasing: Congress can only create a
private corporation in its capacity as the legislature
for the federal zone.
Thank you very much for your immediate consideration,
and timely cooperation. Your silence in this matter
will activate estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen,
and constitute fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel.
Full citations are available in Gilbertson's OPENING
BRIEF in the Supreme Law Library at Internet URL:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives
copies: The Internet (see below)
p.s. I have redacted your email address
from copies of this message which
have been forwarded to the Internet,
to discourage abuse of your privacy.
[end NOTICE AND DEMAND]
: A Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
: is normally considered a special appearance,
: because it is a plea to the original jurisdiction
: of the court. It is NOT a "general appearance."
: If you are still in doubt about your position
: at present, refile a clerical update, nunc pro
: tunc, and put "In Propria Persona" in the
: upper left-hand area of the first page,
: right below your name. Confer at the
: definition of "In Propria Persona" in Black's
: Law Dictionary. Also, make it clear that
: the one appearing is making a special
: appearance, in the very first paragraph,
: as follow:
: COMES NOW John Q. Doe, Citizen of Texas state,
: expressly NOT a citizen of the United States,
: appearing specially and NOT generally, to submit
: certain clerical updates to this honorable Court,
: and to provide formal Notice to all interested
: party(s) of same.
: The following clerical updates are made nunc pro
: tunc, back to the date of original filing, of the
: pleading(s) now modified as follows:
: [enumerate changes here]
: Respectfully submitted,
: /s/ John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
: All courts have enough power to determine,
: on their own, or on motion, whether or not they
: have original jurisdiction to proceed. You do
: NOT grant jurisdiction by appearing to litigate
: this question.
: Notice also that federal court complaints MUST
: specify the Act of Congress which grants
: original jurisdiction to that court, because
: federal court jurisdiction is presumed NOT to
: exist unless positive, affirmative proof is
: shown in the initial pleadings. The opposite
: is generally the case in state courts, however.
: Traffic courts are usually administrative
: tribunals, with administrative law judges
: presiding, who are there to enforce the
: contract consummated between the State and
: the "driver," when that "driver" applied for
: a "driver's" license and was granted the
: privilege(s) for which that driver applied.
: What these traffic courts are generally NOT
: geared to discuss, is the State's deliberate
: failure to disclose the legal interests which
: that State obtained, when the manufacturer's
: statement of origin ("MSO") for your car/truck
: was conveyed from the first seller (e.g. the
: new car dealer) to that State's Department
: of Transportation. The way to smoke out this
: MSO is to bring a Quiet Title action in the
: court of competent jurisdiction; this, however,
: is generally NOT the traffic court. Confer
: in your State's constitution to determine
: which court(s) have original jurisdiction
: over quiet title proceedings.
: You can either move the traffic court to
: transfer your case to the quiet title court,
: or start the quiet title action in parallel,
: with a request that the traffic court "stay"
: its proceeding, pending the outcome of the
: quiet title proceeding. If the traffic
: court denies either motion, you are in a
: great position to request leave to appeal
: such an interlocutory order. You must carry
: the burden of proving that the State committed
: fraud upon you, by unlawfully conveying the
: car's MSO to the DOT. This is done by
: attacking the constitutionality of the statute(s)
: which so direct the dealers in your State.
: We submitted a NOTICE AND DEMAND to the Texas
: Attorney General, for all lawful constitutional
: and statutory authorities compelling dealers
: to convey the MSO to the DOT; his silence has
: allowed us to estop the State of Texas on this
: point, namely, THERE IS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY
: TO CONVEY THE MSO FROM THE FIRST SELLER TO
: THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
[see above for text of NOTICE AND DEMAND]
: In any event, you MUST deal with the
: contract which the driver entered when s/he
: "applied" for the issuance of the license
: (read "permission to exercise a privilege").
: Be prepared to rescind that "license" in
: writing and filed in the court record;
: otherwise, the existence of an apparently
: valid driver's license, will give the court
: all it needs to establish jurisdiction over
: the contract which it is convened to enforce.
: The rule here is this: equity is brutal.
: If there is a contract, either express or
: implied in fact, the court has power to
: enforce that contract's terms, whatever
: those terms might be. But, a fraudulent
: contract can be voided ab initio, and all
: Citizens enjoy the Right of Avoidance,
: namely, the Right to ignore a "contract"
: which was consummated by fraud. See the major
: affirmative defenses in your State Civil Code
: (e.g. fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake,
: etc.) for statutory authority supporting the
: Right of Avoidance.
: Sincerely yours,
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
: Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
: Private Attorney General, and Candidate
: for the U.S. House of Representatives
Post a Followup