Time: Mon Jul 21 16:11:34 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24121
	for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:54:51 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21043;
	Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:53:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:53:01 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO")
References: <199707211913.PAA07371@teaminfinity.com>

Excellent practical advice here.

I just came from the Arizona Superior Court
clerk's office, and the place is a bee hive
of activity.

Their workload must be astronomical.

Caveat emptor!!

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 01:06 PM 7/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I understand your frustration Ralph.  We have all had problems
>getting answers.
>I've had my best results with extremely short queries.  Ask ONE
>polite question, and then wait for a response.  It is much
>harder for your servant (or commerical correspondent, as the
>case may be) to avoid a single question.  Also there are
>advantages to not revealing how much you know, or what direction
>you might be headed in.  One thing leads to another, you know.
>I would personally never try to explain anything to a
>bureaucrat, just seek simple answers to simple questions.
>For example, you could start with "When I purchased
>such-and-such vehicle the dealer sent the manufacturer's
>statement of origin in to your office.  What does the state do
>with these things, and why do they want them?"  Maybe your kid
>is writing a report for school.  Be creative, but brief.
>If the first query is ignored, try it again certifed.  "Gee, my
>last letter must've gotten lost in the mail...."
>You'll be amazed what you might learn if you have a little
>Of course, if you're good at it, there will come a time when the
>friendly servant who once was responsive suddenly becomes stone
>cold silent.
>That's when you get to play the tacit procuration game.
>Mon, 21 Jul 1997 15:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Ralph <ralph@teaminfinity.com> wrote:
>>I was not trying to be polite, I was trying to get some answers.  There is
>>not ALWAYS a direct correlation betwixt the two, but of course there can be.
>>If the claims were that outrageous, then all the easier it should have been
>>to refute them or dispense with them.  No substantative response was
>>received, what is your take on the situation, invective aside, just stick
>>with the facts.  What is your take on the certificate of origin regarding
>>who owns the car based on who has possession of the certificate.  Also
>>realize that this letter was after many other UNANSWERED LETTERS, this one
>>finally got some attention. The bottom line is why not address the QUESTIONS
>>themselves and not continually come up with excuses and obsfucation galore
>>and attacks on the question and JUST ANSWER the DAMN QUESTIONS !!!  Remember
>>these dufuses (for the most part) are supposed to be working for us !!!
>>They are the ones who need to bend over backward.  I will not grovel at them
>>for answers to simple a*s questions, and after having written several
>>extremely polite letters and not receiveing any answers at all I rachet up
>>the tone.  Do you know the answers ? Or are you just an arm chair general
>>who can only offer trite comments and pontificate style that does not
>>address the core issues.  I do not seek uniformity of style, I seek truth.
>>Please rewrite the letter as you would have it written and I will see if
>>your letter engenders a better response, this effort on your part would be
>>quite useful and to which I have no objections so long as it gets some
>>answers without compromise.  To not include tone when that feeling is part
>>of the reality is to not give all the information regarding my request.  To
>>include all the information with my request for info and the fullness
>>thereof, which includes the feelings towards the answers I suspect may be
>>the case, will better enable the questionee to know which straw man needs to
>>be knocked down, GABBISH ?  We all need to stop trying not to see what the
>>other person is saying and just communicate as best you can, and not mince
>>words and succumb to the forest for the trees syndrome.  you know what I was
>>asking as did he.  I appreciate the same brutal honesty back from those I
>>ask brutally honest questions, not excuses or word mincing, when none is
>>required. Make it plain, my tone leaves no doubt as to the nature of my
>>question, or at least that is what I strive for.  If you do not understand
>>the question, please ask for more detail.  If my assumptions are not
>>correct, delineate exactly where they require change with proof. And lastly
>>please do not waste our time with carping over style, if you have answers,
>>make them known, otherwise please keep your editorial foibles to yourself or
>>in a private email to the person who may need your editorial advice, thanks
>>and I hope that this is the last on this subject (editorial OPINIONS), and
>>again please make answers to the questions known if you have any, that is
>>what most of us want I suspect.
>>Thanks in Advance.
>>> Ralph <ralph@teaminfinity.com> writes:
>>> > [...much deleted...]
>>> > 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
>>> > these days. Where are and what are the statutes governing this policy.
>>> > [...much more deleted...]
>>> > 	Respectfully, Ralph
>>> First, that closing is facially at odds with the tone of the entire
>>> letter: The letter is beyond rude, to the point of simple insult.
>>> Second, did you get a response to it?
>>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> 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>
>>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>
>Steve Washam        Walla Walla, Washington        sew@valint.net
>     Does a question provoke more thought than a statement?
>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