Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on June 21, 1998 at 21:17:21:
In Reply to: Re: Traffic Ticket posted by Chris Harcourt on June 21, 1998 at 12:33:43:
: Ok I get a ticket for a 100 in a 55 last night on a motorcycle. The point is that the officer was following me through a small town. He then was a mile behind me when I signaled and passed a vehicle. I then accellerated and at no times could i even see teh officers head lights behind me. I was pulled over nearly 2 miles later when I seen flashing head lights. I waited for the officer to arrive for nearly a minute. He stopped me and said why was I going 120? I said I was going home. I never admitted fault. How could he have got a radar lock that far behind me. He might of been going 120 to catch me but I was not going a 100mph. What can I do?
Begin by mailing a NOTICE AND DEMAND to your
State Attorney General for certified copies of all
LAWFUL constitutional and statutory authorities
by which new car dealers in your state are
compelled to convey the original Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin to your State's Department of
Transportation. File a routine request for
mandatory judicial notice of same,
in your court case.
While you are waiting for the AG's response,
move your court for an indefinite stay of
proceedings, pending discovery of the MSO
requested by the NOTICE AND DEMAND.
You may need help here, but your BEST procedural
move is to focus the court on enforcement of a
Subpoena Duces Tecum, to COMPEL admission of
the MSO into evidence. Your probable cause
for this Subpoena is the DMV statute which
requires new car dealers to convey the MSO
to the DOT. Tell the court that you are
expressly challenging the constitutionality
of this statute, to perfect your record.
Once the State is forced to admit that they
do have this MSO, they will then have to explain
how it was that they came to possess it. It is
at this point that you allege fraud, and be
prepared to carry your burden of proving fraud
(because fraud is your burden to prove).
The fraud is this: the new car dealers participated
in a constructive fraud by failing to disclose
to you that the MSO was being conveyed to the
State DOT, and that such a conveyance thereby
gave your State a controlling legal interest
in the new car, rendering it a "motor vehicle"
[sic] operating in interstate commerce. This
fraud is propagated upon the sale of any used
car as well, although the seller is not likely
to be conscious of this failure to disclose
what SHOULD have been disclosed.
DO NOT PRESUME THAT THE STATUTE COMPELLING
DEALERS TO DO SO IS CONSTITUTIONAL. ON THE
CONTRARY, BE PREPARED TO CHALLENGE IT PROPERLY
Do the above in addition to anything else you
were planning to do, e.g., demand the State
to produce a damaged and/or injured party.
To be thorough, be prepared to rescind your
application for driver's license, nunc pro tunc
to the date of the original application, because
it too was obtained under a constructive fraud,
namely, that applying for a driver's license
renders you a "person" operating in interstate
commerce who must be licensed, as opposed to
a private Citizen who is exercising the
fundamental Right to travel and enjoy private
Last but not least, to sue out the State's
alleged legal interest in your car, the correct
procedure, to quiet any disputes over the true
owner(s), is a Quiet Title action. Confer at
"Quiet Title" in C.J., C.J.S., and AmJur.
QT may be a bit ambitious for you, and it
may require that you transfer the case to
a higher court (e.g. Superior Court in
California, District Court in Texas), but
it would be well worth the effort, since this
will prove whether or not the State ever
obtained any lawful interest in your car/truck,
in the first instance (as opposed to a "legal"
interest). Mandatory insurance is required to
indemnify the State's "legal interest" in your
"motor vehicle." Got it?
Many of these steps may cause the court to
begin collaborating with the State, in order
to avoid a precedent that would ultimately
be disastrous for all DMV scams throughout
the 50 states of the Union. It would be MUCH
cheaper for all concerned governments simply
to dismiss your case, yes? :)
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives
Post a Followup