Time: Sat Dec 13 14:31:00 1997
To: repub-d@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: auto insurance
Bcc: sls

Liability insurance indemnifies the
State's interest in the car or truck;
that is the underlying reason for making
it mandatory on all "motor vehicles" --
read "registered, and thus operating in 
interstate commerce" by definition.

Comprehensive is something else again,
although you will probably have some
difficulty getting this kind of insurance
on a car, if it is not already registered.

There is a fair amount of collusion which
is going on, between the corporate State
governments, and the banks and insurance
companies.  Insurance companies have nothing
to do except process receipts, and pay out
claims -- very low overhead, compared to 
other industries, like auto production,
or telecommunications.

This is my earnest understanding of the
truth of the situation;  remember, the 
common law is the rule of decision in
all California state courts.  The "common
law" is recognized by the 7th Amendment,
and its meaning remains constant, until
and unless three-fourths of the several
states should amend it properly.  To be
eligible for admission to the Union, each
state's constitution must recognize the
U.S. Constitution as the supreme Law of
the Land;  thus, the 7th Amendment is
the supreme Law in each Union state.

Martial rule and/or martial is prohibited
by Article III, which prevents the 
federal government from warring against
the several states.  An artificially 
prolonged "emergency" violates the intent
of the prohibition against treason.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 11:21 AM 12/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Is that so???
>Very interesting stuff, Paul, and opens up some cool possibilities.
>I have a few more questions on the matter:
>1.) The insurance is required, not (strictly speaking) on the vehicle
>itself (what insurance companies call "collision coverage", but on the
>people and property you might clobber in a crash. To my (highly
>uninformed) mind, this falls outside your description of what the
>state doesn't have an interest in (the car whose MSO is now in *my*
>pocket instead of theirs, or was lost by them). Does the state also
>have an interest in the bod of the driver of the car I just knocked
>through that intersection? Can they compel me to carry insurance (or F.R.)
>for his medical treatment?
>2.) The state's current means of forcing me to have insurance, is twofold:
>(a) to deny me current tags, and (b) to suspend my license if found driving
>without that insurance (I found this out the hard way a while back, while
>recovering from a divorce). If I pass the driver-training tests, but don't
>carry the required insurance or FR, is there a way I can still make the
>state grant me the license, and/or allow me to drive my "household good"
>on public roads?
>3.) You said, "If the State does admit they had it, at some point in
>time, then you prove unlawful conversion."  How is that? "unlawful"
>in that they weren't the ones paying for the car (I was), and so they
>should not be in possession of the MSO?
>4.) How do I "compel discovery of the MSO"? And, will "initiating
>quiet title proceedings" also reveal who legally owns the car, and
>who is in possession of the MSO?
>I now carry insurance on all my and my wife's cars, and think it's a
>bad idea to do otherwise (despite having done it in the past, mea
>kulpa, but at least I didn't hurt anyone or damage anything thank Gawd),
>since by driving a car near other people I *am* putting them at risk
>in case I screw up, which I have been known to do. But, I'm fascinated
>by this method of possibly getting Big Brother to slightly relax his
> ------------
><original message follows>
>Insurance is only necessary for "motor vehicles," and these are
>strictly defined.  If the State of California is not the holder-in-
>due-course of the manufacturer's statement of origin ("MSO"), then
>it has no legal interest in the car and cannot compel you to insure
>an interest which the State does not have.
>Your remedy is to:
>1.  compel discovery of the MSO, or an admission
>    that the State DMV destroyed it;
>2.  institute quiet title proceedings as to the
>    lawful ownership of the car.
>If the State does admit they had it, at some point in time, then you
>prove unlawful conversion.  It is not hard to prove that they had it,
>as some point in time, because dealers are REQUIRED to convey the MSO
>to the State DMV's;  this practice is uniform across all of the several
>The State of Arizona REQUIRES dealers to convey the MSO to the State,
>as a condition of registering any new "motor vehicle."  If you have
>the MSO for a car or truck, it is no longer a "motor vehicle"; the car
>or truck is actually a "household good", by definition.
>You have the fundamental Right to own and operate private property, as
>long as there is no lien, or "cloud," on the title.  A "certificate of
>title" is not proof of ownership by you;  it is actually evidence that
>the State holds the real title.
>More details will follow this message.
>/s/ Paul Mitchell,
>Candidate for Congress
>At 09:59 AM 12/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Paul Mitchell wrote:
>>>There is an auto insurer who was buying
>>>radio slots recently, to announce that
>>>many insurers breach their contracts,
>>>if and when a claim is presented.
>>>I cannot remember which company it was,
>>>however.  This data would make very
>>>good evidence to support a decision
>>>against buying any insurance.
>>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
>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