Time: Sat Oct 11 14:13:01 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26305
	for [address in tool bar]; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:13:20 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22980;
	Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:11:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:10:59 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
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