Time: Mon Jul 21 19:03:45 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA21448;
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:59:03 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:58:19 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO")
Once the state obtains the Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin ("MSO"), it becomes
a "holder in due course", with a legal
interest in the car/truck/motorcycle.
Judges take silent judicial notice of
this legal interest, when you come into
court on a traffic citation.
Rather than talk about this ad nauseam, I recommend
that you do something about it, like writing to
your state DMV and requesting a certified
copy of the MSO for your chassis number
(NOT the license number). The chassis number
is a serial I.D. which uniquely identifies
the car/truck BEFORE a license plate is
assigned. Send the DMV a flat rate Priority
Mail envelope, with $3.00 postage prepaid,
in which you demand the DMV to transmit their
reply. If they keep the $3.00 stamp, they
have unlawfully converted the postage, thus
violating Title 18, U.S.C., postal statutes.
See USPS Publication #221 for addressing
instructions. Here is our "location" according
to those instructions:
Supreme Law Firm
c/o general delivery at:
2509 North Campbell Avenue, Suite 1776
Tucson 85719/tdc
ARIZONA STATE
Note the capitalization of the "foreign state"
in the last line. This is not a nomme de guerre;
it is merely the USPS format for "foreign locations."
For purposes of all municipal law, the several states
are foreign with respect to each other, and with
respect to the District of Columbia.
In your demand to the DMV, give them a reasonable
deadline, like 30 days, with another grace period
beyond that of 15 days (they are VERY busy, as are
all government agencies). Then, lower the final
NOTICE AND DEMAND to a 5-day deadline, beyond which
you have estopped them, pursuant to Carmine v.
Bowen. That means you are entitled to proceed on
the basis of the legal presumption that THEY DO
HAVE THE MSO, because you do NOT have it! Moreover,
they are estopped then from ever producing it, because
silence activates estoppel, under the Carmine case.
Then, you begin to build your foundation with an
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE,
because their silence has given you probable
cause to believe that unlawful conversion of the
MSO has occurred, somewhere in the chain of
possession. This AFFIDAVIT incorporates all
of your letters and related documentation, to
help with preponderance (tip the scales with
lots of unrebuttable evidence).
If you are the original buyer, you have the
best overall standing; if you are not the original
buyer, you allege fraud at the top of the chain,
and that fraud trickles down from one buyer to
the next, until it touches you. Fraud vitiates
even the most solemn promises, so you have carried
your burden of proving this fraud, once the state
falls silence. See U.S. v. Tweel for authority
that silence is also a fraud, where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak.
Your 3 demands create the obligation required by Tweel
(30-day, 15-day, 5-day notices). After 3 tries,
you have exhausted administrative your remedies
under common law practices, and the common law
is often the rule of decision in most states
(Louisiana is different, for example). In California,
the common law is the rule of decision, pursuant
to the California Civil Code ("CCC").
I hope this helps. I prefer men (and women) of
action. Talk is cheap. Forgive me if this
sounds blunt, but that is how I feel.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 02:03 PM 7/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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 powerful
>> 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>
>
>
========================================================================
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