Time: Sun Dec 14 07:28:49 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: auto insurance
Bcc: <fjernest@thepoint.net>

The California Civil Code, for example,
states, in plain English, that an "obligation"
arises either from the operation of law, or
from the contract of the parties, and from
nothing else.  

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Then, it goes on to say that the ONLY obligation
which arises from the obligation of law is
to avoid doing damage or injury to the person
or property of others.  So, the operation of law [sic] 
in California is, clearly, the common law, preserved 
in the California Civil Code.  

Therefore, the "obligation" to buy
automobile insurance must arise from the
"contract of the parties."  What "contract"
is that?  Answer: it is the application for 
motor vehicle registration.  Said application is
forwarded to the DMV along with the MSO.
We have located the precise Arizona statute
which requires Arizona new car dealers to do so.
It is very revealing that this is the ONLY mention
of the term "manufacturer's statement of origin"
anywhere in the entire Arizona DMV code.  Now,
we give thanks to the Most High for this gift of
very powerful computers, because ...

... THERE is the break in the chain of possession!

Let me give you an example which is directly
parallel, in all respects.  Microsoft software
comes with a green, printed Certificate of
Authenticity.  Once that Certificate should
become separated from the document on which
it was originally affixed, the one holding
that document -- in due course -- cannot prove
that it came directly from Microsoft.  The
Certificate is in one place, and the document
(and software that goes with it), are in another
place.  Hence, the law would render the current
"holder-in-due-course" of the software, to be
an unauthorized user of the documentation and
software in question.  Actually, he would be,
more accurately, the "holder-in-UNdue-course,"
because the software (and documentation) are not his "due".

As the green Certificate says:  

  "This Certificate is your assurance that the 
   software you obtained with your computer system
   is legally licensed from Microsoft Corporation."

Now, if I were to sell my documentation with this
Certificate of Authenticity affixed, then the
buyer would become the new "holder-in-due-course,"
and he would have this assurance passed along to 
him.  If, however, I were to sell my documentation
WITHOUT this Certificate of Authenticity affixed,
then the buyer would NOT have this assurance
passed along ("assigned") to him.  This much 
should be fairly obvious to everyone, with or without 
legalese to prove it.

Now, back to auto MSO's:  the Microsoft Certificate
of Authenticity is directly parallel (in pari materia)
to the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin for any
new car or truck.  By separating the MSO from the
new car or truck, and requiring the new car/truck dealer 
to send the MSO to the DMV along with the application
for temporary registration, the new car buyer is not
the holder-in-due-course of the MSO and, therefore,
that buyer is not the true owner in allodium.  The
State has become the holder-in-due-course of the
MSO and, thus, of a controlling legal interest
in the new car or truck.  From that "interest"
it follows that the State can compel specific
performance to protect (read "indemnify") that
"interest".  It is not a lawful interest, however;
it is, at best, a colorable interest.

It is for these reasons that any challenge to 
"expired registration" and similar "violations"
must begin by suing out the MSO on the car or
truck in question.  By demanding that the State
produce a certified copy of it, or an admission
that it was destroyed (after it was microfiched),
you will put the State in a very difficult bind,
because they will need to prove how it was they
came to possess it in the first place.  It is a 
fraudulent (unlawful) conversion, just as if someone 
were to remove the Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity 
from new software documentation.  It is fraudulent
because there was not full disclosure of the "voluntary"
nature of the application for registration, and of the
fact that dealers routinely forward the MSO to the
State Department of "Motor Vehicles," without informing
buyers of this practice.

I hope this helps.  Think about that Certificate
of Authenticity and its direct parallels to
the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin 
(aka Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO").
This certainly helped me to clarify my thinking
on this particular matter.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 06:48 AM 12/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 09:59 AM 12/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>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
>Same here in Indiana. It would be a great country if we would stop kissing
>politicians' asses for favors. 
>Frank Ernest
>A Traditional Astrologer
>Horary and Mundane Astrology

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail