Manufacturer's Statement of Origin -- Key To Ownership

by
Bruce G. McCarthy

PREFACE
Obtaining concise, meaningful answers from public officials is an
unparalleled and age-old challenge. Bureaucrats, after all, view their
office as the last bastion of liberty - and from this lofty perch they
unashamedly claim the right to remain silent.
"A [public] servant will not be corrected by words: for though he
understand he will not answer." Proverbs 29:19
Dilemma: How does one converse with a deaf-mute? Solution: Adopt a
technique of your adversary. Remember that certified letter?
"THIS IS THE VOICE OF DOOM SPEAKING! It has been determined that
you are a [taxpayer, neo-nazi, pinko, commie fag], and thus
subject to [an awesome statute is inserted here], and shall [pay
up, stand liable, etc.]... THIS DETERMINATION BECOMES FINAL 14
DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE UNLESS WITHIN SUCH TIME A
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR HEARING IS FILED WITH THIS OFFICE, SETTING
FORTH YOUR OBJECTIONS IN DETAIL."
Nice choice. To do nothing admits guilt, and the penalty. But to object
makes you the Plaintiff, with the burden of proof. Welcome to the
proverbial 'rock and a hard place' - craftily concocted by an agent of
the Civil Law. A determination - yours - was entered by 'tacit
procuration'. Why not submit your own, to correct the record - thereby
introducing a third option?
"PROCURATION. Agency, proxy; the act of constituting another
one's
attorney in fact. The act by which one person gives power to
another to act in his place, as he could do himself." Black's
Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 1086
The world abounds with procurators - lawyers, guardians, trustees and
legislators who generally obtain our EXPRESS consent. Courts and other
government agencies, on the other hand, use the IMPLIED, or tacit
procuration.
A plea of 'not guilty' on behalf of a mute accused by a magistrate is
such an example.
"An express procuration is one made by the express consent of
the
parties. AN IMPLIED OR TACIT PROCURATION TAKES PLACE WHEN AN
INDIVIDUAL SEES ANOTHER MANAGING HIS AFFAIRS AND DOES NOT
INTERFERE TO PREVENT IT." Black's supra, p. 1087 [emphasis
mine]

Two 'hybrid' tacit procurations were employed in the enclosed MVD file as
a
type of 'correspondence Drain-o' which you, the reader, may find useful
whenever it becomes necessary to...
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the
way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to
the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and
thou
be cast into prison." Matthew 5:25
To avoid Caesar's prison, you must first avoid his courts. And a means to
such ends could be in securing agreements (stipulations) with your
adversary,
so as to undermine his cause of action. Your position thus gains its
greatest
strength, not where you and your adversary differ - but where you agree.
- Bruce G. McCarthy

[Exhibit A: Copy of form DOR-108]

[Exhibit B: Copy of purchase agreement]
[Exhibit C: Copy of Manufacturer's Statement of Origin]
MAXIMS OF THE CIVIL LAW IN SUPPORT OF TACIT PROCURATION
Silence shows consent. 6 Barb. [N.Y.] 2B, 35.
Qui non negat, fatetur. He who does not deny, admits. Trayner, Max. 503.
[many others not included - see Black's and Bouvier's Law Dictionaries]

-Rt. 1, Box 61-A

Schell City, MO
84783
July 17, 1985
Title/License/Registration Division
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Jefferson City, MO 65104
Dear Sir or Madam:
Having secured a copy of APPLICATION FOR MISSOURI TITLE AND/OR LICENSE, I
need some clarification from your office prior to filling out such a
form.
At the top of this form (DOR-108) appears "TITLE TYPE", with several
"types"
listed (e.g., original, duplicate, etc.). These categories suggest one is

applying for something the first time or seeking a copy, but nowhere does
the
form specifically identify what kind/type of "title" for which the
application
is made.
1. What kind/type "title" do you issue?
The form provides a place for "OWNER'S NAME", though I suspect one must
produce proof of ownership, the State of Missouri not simply taking the
applicant's word.
2. What document is sufficient to prove ownership?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bruce G.
McCarthy

-October 17,
1985
RE: Application for Missouri Title (DOR-108)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Receiving no reply/answer to my two questions (letter dated July 17,
1985)
prompts this second attempt, contrary though it may be to the doctrine
'Yours
is not to reason why, but to do or die.' The passage of time has,
naturally,
spawned additional questions, all of which you can see are simple and
straight
forward.
Your Form DOR-108 lists several categories of
specifically identifies what KIND of title is
original,
nor is the Missouri MVD definition of "title"
necessitating a guess or question, the latter

"TITLE TYPE", but nowhere

being sought in the
anywhere disclosed,
being the better choice.

1. How does DMV/DOR define the singular word "title"? (Do not confuse
with
Certificate of Title, Missouri Title or other modified "titles".)
2. What kind/type "title" do you issue in the original?
The Form DOR-108 provides a place for "OWNER'S NAME", though I suspect
the

applicant must produce written proof of ownership - unless your

department
will take his word.
3. What document/s is/are deemed sufficient to prove ownership?
4. Does the applicant surrender possession of any document when
applying for
a Missouri Title?
5. Does the applicant surrender any right/s by applying for Missouri
title?
6. What is a "Missouri Title", as distinguished from a bare "title"
evidencing sole/absolute ownership?
7. Is either the Bill of Sale and/or Certificate of Origin (MSO) a
document
or indication of title?
Since it is presumed the applicant is cognizant of whatsoever he makes
application, else would he apply, so too the grantor must comprehend all
conditions/ramifications couched in that which he bestows. Thus, prior to
making application, I need answers to these questions, confident that you
possess the wherewithal to provide them easily and without hesitation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy

-October 31, 1985

Missouri Department of Revenue
Motor Vehicle Bureau
P.O. Box 100
Jefferson City, MO 65105
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1985 regarding
questions
pertaining to Form DOR-108 - Application for Missouri Title and/or
License.
A "title" as defined in Section 301.190 of the Revised Statutes of the
State
of Missouri, is a certificate of ownership containing a complete
description
of the motor vehicle or trailer, manufacturer's or other identifying
number,

together with a statement of any liens or encumbrances on the motor

vehicle or
trailer.
Original titles are issued on motor vehicles, trailers, boats and motors.
A Missouri certificate of title issued in the owner's name is the only
proof
of ownership.
A properly assigned title must be surrendered with any application for
Missouri title.
The applicant (purchaser) does not surrender any rights when applying for
a
Missouri certificate of title.
A Missouri certificate of title is considered "open" until ownership is
transferred. To transfer ownership the assignment on the back of the
title
must be completed and signed by the owner in the presence of a notary
public.
A bill of sale is not considered an ownership document, but may be
required to
verify an actual purchase price of a motor vehicle. The manufacturer's
statement of origin is not proof of ownership until an application for
title
is presented to the Department of Revenue's Motor Vehicle Bureau along
with
all state and local taxes required and the appropriate title and license
fees.
I hope this information will be of help to you. Should you have any
questions
or need additional information, please feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Bemboom, Supervisor
Information and Maintenance Section
NKB:ss
-November 6, 1985
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: TITLE, CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, ETC.
Dear Nancy Bemboom:
Thank you for responding to my follow-up inquiry of October 17th, and I

certainly appreciate your offer of assistance. The understanding of a

subject
necessitates comprehension of its terms, made possible by isolating one
from
the other, examining each in a logical sequence. This I'm attempting to
do,
and with your assistance should be able to grasp the subject at hand. In
furtherance of this goal, my seven (7) questions are reviewed herewith,
along
with your correlative responses.
1. Re: Definition of 'title': "A title...is a CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
containing...description...identifying number...with a statement of any
liens..."
[a.] A 'title' is a piece of paper. [Yes/No]
[b.] The MSO is a piece of paper, containing the description,
identifying
number...with statement of any liens. [Yes/No]
2. Re: Kind/Type title issued in the original: "Original titles are
issued...on motor vehicles, trailers..."
The question did not seek the nature of the entity upon which the title
is
issued, but rather, the nature of the title ITSELF - and evidently, from
your
response, "A Missouri CERTIFICATE of title [is] issued..."
[a.] Is a Certificate of Title, the Title for which it is the
Certificate?
[Yes/No]
This is not circumlocution, but an essential question to unravel your
confusing response. For instance, a gold coin once deposited with a
banker,
entitled the depositor to a receipt, or Certificate of Deposit. The paper
receipt was obviously not the deposit (gold coin). Likewise, a student,
upon
receiving an education, is entitled to a document certifying the
education was
received. The Certificate (diploma) is not the education itself.
3. Re: Document[s] sufficient to prove ownership: "A Missouri
certificate of
title issued in the owner's name is the ONLY proof of ownership." (This
may
have inadvertently answered my second question, but I needed a
verification.
Thank you.)
[a.] Who owns the vehicle prior to obtaining a Missouri Certificate of
Title,
assuming no lienholders?

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Manufacturer
Dealer
Purchaser
State (e.g. Missouri, Arizona, etc.)
No one
Other

4. Re: Document surrendered to obtain a "Missouri Title": "A properly

assigned TITLE MUST BE SURRENDERED with any application for Missouri
TITLE."
[a.] What kind/type of title must be surrendered or assigned to obtain
a
Missouri (certificate OF) title?
5. Re: Rights surrendered: "The applicant [purchaser] does not surrender
any
rights when applying for a Missouri CERTIFICATE OF TITLE." (Resolution
pending.) This was also your second reference to a 'certificate of
title'.
6. Re: Difference between a Missouri Title and a Title: "A Missouri
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is considered 'open' until..." And this was your
third
reference to 'certificate of title'.
"To transfer ownership the assignment on the back of the title must be
completed and signed by the owner..."
[a.] Which document are you calling the 'title', the back of which is
'completed and signed by the owner'?
7. Re: Bill of Sale and/or MSO: "A bill of sale is not considered an
ownership document..."
[a.] How do you define Bill of Sale?
You further stated, "The manufacturer's statement of origin is not proof
of
ownership until an application for title is presented to the
Department..."
[b.] What is your definition of MSO?
[c.] Does it become proof of ownership AFTER the application for "title"
(certificate OF)? [Yes/No]
Your time and consideration to my nine [9] questions will be most
appreciated,
Nancy. If you would number and answer all of them, it would speed up my
comprehension.
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bruce G.
McCarthy
-December 5, 1985
2ND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Dear Nancy Bemboom,
Pursuant to your offer of assistance dated October 31, 1985, I made
inquiry
(November 6, 1985) into the accurate and lawful meaning of your letter,
which
simultaneously confirmed and denied my understanding of the subject under
scrutiny. Thus far, I've received no answer.
Prior to making APPLICATION FOR MISSOURI "TITLE" AND/OR LICENSE, I must
UNDERSTAND what it is for which I'm applying! My initial query (2
questions)
made on July 17, 1985, went unanswered, prompting a second attempt (7
questions) on October 17, 1985, to which your convoluted reply of October
31,
1985 was made.
PLEASE ANSWER my nine [9] fundamental/essential questions that I might
know
whether to complete your Form DOR-108. Your delay has been responsible
for my
exercising the necessary Right of Travel, absent State of Missouri
privileges
(e.g., Missouri "Title" and/or License).
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bruce G.
McCarthy
-December 30, 1985
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION VIA TACIT PROCURATION
Dear Nancy Bemboom:
Having made two unanswered requests (6 Nov and 5 Dec 1985) for
clarification
of your 31 Oct 1985 response prompts this third attempt to obtain clear,
concise answers to a perplexing problem. Thus, I hope to 'sound out' the
Motor

Vehicle Bureau as to lawful implications of widely used, but perhaps

misunderstood terms.
DETERMINATION/RESPONSE BY PROXY
The following questions are answered herein on your behalf, thus
resolving the
'stalemate' imposed by your failure to respond.
1. Is the MSO a certificate of ownership containing description,
identifying
number (of automobile or trailer, etc.), with statement of liens? ANSWER:
YES.
2. Is a Certificate of Title the 'Title' for which it is the
Certificate?
ANSWER: NO.
3. Who 'owns' an automobile or trailer, assuming no lienholder, prior to
obtaining a Missouri Certificate of Title? ANSWER: PURCHASER/PARTY WITH
THE
BILL OF SALE AND/OR MSO (without lien) IS ABSOLUTE OWNER.
4. What documents are sufficient to prove lawful and absolute ownership?
ANSWER: BILL OF SALE AND MSO.
5. What document must be surrendered to obtain a Missouri Certificate of
Title? ANSWER: THE TITLE.
6. What document, conforming to the definition of a 'title', must be
surrendered by the owner to obtain a Missouri Certificate of Title?
ANSWER:
THE MSO.
7. Can the absolute owner of autombile or trailer be compelled to
surrender
the TITLE to that which he owns free and clear? ANSWER: NO.
8. Are all rightful elements/conditions of absolute ownership
recognized,
upheld and respected by the Missouri Department of Revenue? ANSWER: YES.
9. Are any 'rights' surrendered when applying for Missouri Certificate
of
Title? ANSWER: YES. ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IS SURRENDERED IN EXCHANGE FOR
QUALIFIED OWNERSHIP AS THE BARE LEGAL OWNER, THE STATE BECOMING AN
EQUITABLE
OWNER IN THE AUTOMOBILE, TRAILER, ETC.
10. Can the State of Missouri lawfully compel anyone to surrender their
right
of ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP in exchange for QUALIFIED OWNERSHIP? ANSWER: NO.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL DETERMINATION

Thus. by REASON of the foregoing, it is determined an absolute owner

CANNOT be
compelled to surrender one right so as to secure another, nor to exercise
a
State granted privilege. An absolute owner cannot be compelled to obtain
a
Missouri Certificate of Title when already possessing the MSO/Title
without
liens.
DETERMINATION FINAL ABSENT OBJECTION
This determination becomes FINAL unless specifically objected to in
detail
within 14 days of receipt of this instrument. Allowance for additional
time
will be granted if lawful provision is cited within the initial 14 day
period.
Dated this _____ day of January, 1986
Pursuant to the Bible doctrine of 'two or three witnesses' (Dt. 19:15,
Mt.
18:16, etc), we put our hands to this instrument.
___________________
(Bruce G. McCarthy)

____________________
(Janice C. McCarthy)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We, Bruce G. and Janice C. McCarthy, hereby certify that we have made due
service of the foregoing upon Nancy K. Bemboom by U.S. Mail (Certified Return Receipt), a conformed copy sent to her at Department of Revenue,
Box
100, Jefferson City, MO, this 9th day of January, 1986.
___________________
(Bruce G. McCarthy)

____________________
(Janice C. McCarthy)

-January 7, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
This is in response to your December 30, 1985 correspondence regarding
details
of Missouri's motor vehicle titling and registration laws.
Section 301.190 of the Missouri Revised Statutes provides that no
Missouri
certificate of Registration for any motor vehicle or trailer shall be
issued

by the Director of Revenue unless the owner makes application for and is
granted a Missouri certificate of ownership (title) to such motor
vehicle, or
presents satisfactory evidence that such certificate has been previously
issued to the owner for such motor vehicle of trailer.
The State of Missouri does not purport to have any ownership rights or
equity
in a motor vehicle or trailer by virtue of issuing a Missouri certificate
of
ownership (title) to the motor vehicle or trailer; however, Missouri law
does
clearly state that citizens of Missouri may not legally operate their
vehicles
on the streets and highways of this State unless and until they have been
granted a certificate of ownership (title) for the vehicles. In short,
titling
must precede registration in Misouri. It is legal to title your vehicle
and
not register it, but illegal to register it without first titling it.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
cc: Nancy K. Bemboom
-January 15, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Thank you for responding (7 Jan '86) to my instrument of 30 Dec 1985,
addressed to Nancy K. Bemboom. She recently received a corrected copy via
certified mail to amend my error in the Certificate of Service section.
A goodly portion of your letter, however, spoke to the necessity of
having a
Certificate of Title prior to applying for a Missouri Certificate of
REGISTRATION - an issue not under consideration at present. By first
resolving
the 'title' question, the subject of 'registration' will be more easily
understood, the 'whole' being comprehended in/as the sum of its 'parts'.
Apparently we are one accord, however, with respect to nine (out of ten)
elements in the proxy determintion, your singular objection made to
Question
#9 (re: 'rights' surrendered) - our attention thus narrowed to this
specific
(albeit non-detailed) objection.

"The State of Missouri does not PURPORT to have any ownership

rights or
equity in a motor vehicle or trailer by virtue of issuing a
Missouri
certificate of ownership (title)..." -per yours, 7 Jan '86.
What may be a truism need not necessarily find expression in bold print
and/or
positive declaration. For instance, a yellow curved fruit may be a
banana,
without having a flourescent sign affixed and spelling out its name. If
the
item meets the criteria for a banana - it is one. Thus bananas do not
'purport' to be bananas.
But nevertheless, I may have been hasty in judgment, in which case I
shall ask
but three questions to put my mind at ease:
1. Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO (assuming no
lienholders)
prior to obtaining a Missouri Certificate of Title?
2. Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO AFTER obtaining a
Missouri
Certificate of Title?
3. Does an applicant for Missouri Certificate of Title have the option
to
recover his MSO?
Evidently, by your response the term 'equity' was mistaken to mean 'net
worth', which in this instance does not apply. Rather, the term signified
a
system of jurisprudence somewhat akin to, but not synonymous with, 'law'.
Your prompt attention to this matter will be most appreciated as my
needs/desires can only be fulfilled by physical movement from place to
place.
My options are to trespass on private ground or use the public highways the
latter having been my choice.
Prior to making application for your Certificate of Title, I must know
(and
have a right to know) what it is for which application is made - and what
is
surrendered in the process.
Thank you Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy

-January 17, 1986

Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I trust this letter will allow you to take the final step in your journey
to
know, "...what it is for which application is made [a Missouri
Certificate of
Title] and what is surrendered [a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin] in
the
process."
Listed below are the answers to your three questions.
1.
"Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO (assuming no
lienholders)
prior to obtaining a MO Certificate of Title?"
ANSWER: The motor vehicle dealership listed on the face of the MSO,
if
unassigned, or the last assigned owner on the reverse of the MSO.
2.

"Who has ownership/property rights in the MSO AFTER obtaining a MO

Certificate of Title?"

ANSWER: The Motor Vehicle Bureau of the Missouri Department of

Revenue.
3.

"Does an applicant for MO Certificate of Title have the option to

recover his MSO?"
ANSWER: No.

We look forward to receiving your application for a MO Certificate of

Title.
Incidentally, Mr. McCarthy, Missouri citizens are required by Section
301.190
of the Revised Statutes of Missouri to apply for a Missouri Certificate
of
Title within thirty days from the date of purchase of a motor vehicle or
trailer.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
-January 23, 1986

Dear Mr. Munsen:

Thank you for the forthright reply (17 Jan '86) to my questions, again
confirming we have but a singular disagreement arising from the proxy
determination of 30 Dec '85 (re-submitted 9 Jan '86). And you know, one
out of
ten isn't bad! Even these three answers confirmed my premise, further
proving
we have little in dispute - save perhaps my failure to proceed in haste.
But I
am puzzled one can be "...required...to apply for a...Certificate of
Title.."!
1. Can a person be COMPELLED at law to make an 'application' (request,
petition, etc.)?
2. Is there a valid binding application when not obtained by/of one's
free
will/choice? ("Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3)
3. If we ARE compelled to 'apply' for a MO Certificate of Title within
30
days, after which ownership/property rights to MSO reside with MO - can
you
automatically obtain our MSO after 30 days by court order, etc.?
Obviously, if our MSO belongs to the Motor Vehicle Bureau AFTER we
'apply' for
the MO Certificate of Title, and we are REQUIRED to make application
within 30
days - the MSO must belong to Missouri AFTER 30 days, even if we DON'T
'apply'. And if we have something that belongs to you, there ought to be
legal
remedy available for you to wrest it from us.
4. And IF this be true - how did you acquire an ownership/property right
to
the MSO PRIOR to our application?
[a.] By contract/quasi-contract provision at time of sale/transaction.
[b.] No such right exists before applicant requests MO Certificate of
Title.
[c.] Other (please explain).
This Catch-22 situation must have a reasonable solution, for doubtless
we're
on the horns of a 'choice of laws/conflict of laws' dilemma, the 'choice'
between 'law' and 'equity'. And to reconcile the threat of bodily
harm/risk of
property loss due to my delayed application for your equity jurisdiction:
5. Will Motor Vehicle Bureau accept my application for MO Certificate of

Title expressly made "under duress, out of fear of distraint and

distress"?
Thank you for your time and consideration Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-January 27, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Listed below are the answers to the questions contained in your most
recent
letter of January 23, 1986:
1.
for

Section 301.190 of Missouri Law compels Missouri citizens to apply

title to and pay taxes on a motor vehicle within thirty days after

the
motor vehicle is acquired by the applicant.
2.
own

Whether or not Missouri citizens choose to observe this Law of their

free will or not is academic.

3.
Missouri may not "automatically obtain a [citizen's] MSO after 30
days
by court order" if the citizen elects to violate Section 301.190 of
Missouri Law.
4.
to

A Missouri citizen in possession of an MSO has nothing that "belongs

[the State of Missouri]". Hence, Missouri has no "ownership/property

right" to a citizen's MSO PRIOR TO his or her application for a
Missouri
Certificate of Title.
5.
The Motor Vehicle Bureau will accept a citizen's application for
Missouri
Certificate of Title regardless of the fact that such application
may be
made "under duress, out of fear of distraint and distress."
We would hope, however, that Missouri citizens would observe their duty
to
follow Missouri Laws of their own free will and in the spirit of accord
which
you so aptly cited from Amos 3:3.
Sincerely,

Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager

Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
-February 10, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Being away for a few days has delayed my response to your letter of 27
Jan '86
in which you provided some puzzling answers - addressed herein for
clarification.
Re: Section 301.190 which allegedly "compels" an application for title:
While
I can readily grasp how one might be "required" to apply within 30 days
to
avoid penalty, I cannot see how an act of "application" (a request) can
be
linked with "compulsion". It appears you have comingled to involuntary
stimulus of one party (the grantor) with the voluntary action of another
(the
grantee), creating, as it were, a non-sequitor.
1. Are you absolutely certain the granting party (State) can lawfully
compel
the applicant to entreat, beg, petition or make request of the compelling
grantor?
2. And when do individual natural persons become subject to these Motor
Vehicle Statutes?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

At birth.
At a particular age.
Upon application for license, etc.
Once within the Missouri borders.
Other.

I've never yet seen a copy of these Motor Vehicle Statutes which you
allege
are binding upon me.
3. Is a complete set of Motor Vehicle Statutes issued to all license,
registration and/or State Certificate of Title applicants - or are they
all
presumed to know the statutes?
Further, if one can be compelled to apply for a 'title' within 30 days of
motor vehicle acquisition, it is incumbent upon us all to know the
characteristics of this 'thing' so we can recognize it when we see,
smell,

hear, taste and/or touch the 'title' - lest others deceive/coerce us into
relinquishing what we possess, but fail to discern/distinguish.
4. Is the 'title' (not to be construed with a certificate/document OF
title)
tangible or non-tangible?
A CERTIFICATE of Title, being made of paper, IS tangible, but is not the
'title' for which it is a certificate. The 'title' proper seems to be a
nontangible appelation (e.g., king, husband, buyer, owner, etc.) made
manifest/
evident by a document. If this is not so, please correct me.
5. Does the 'title' per se pass from seller to buyer at the
date/time/instant
of payment?
Oh mercy. I've asked more questions. Please forgive me for being so
inquisitive and thank you for the time and effort expended to answer
them.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-February 14, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Your letter of February 10, 1986 has convinced me that I may no longer be
of
assistance to you.
I am forwarding your most recent letter, as well as all previous letters
from
you (with my responses attached) to our General Counsel's Office and
Criminal
Investigation Bureau for whatever action they deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr,. Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
-February 27, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:

Your latest letter (10 Feb '86) suggests you may have lost your patience
with
me. Perhaps you too feel "(Mine) is not to reason why, but to do or die".
Please forgive my curiosity and thanks for the help thus far, resting
assured
I'll not think ill of you for dropping out. Maybe the next party higher
up the
ladder (did I err, thinking it wass you?) will keep us both abreast of
their
knowledge and understanding on this subject.
By the way, I have heard from neither your General Counsel OR the
Criminal
Investigation Bureau as of yet. Would you mind prodding them just a wee
bit
for me? Those last five (5) questions were quite important, and maybe
they
have the answers.
Meanwhile, please send me a complete set of the Missouri Motor Vehicle
Statutes you imply are binding upon me. In checking around, I can find NO
ONE
who has ever read them! Isn't that amazing?! Maybe we should rename this
the
"SNOW ME" State. After all, a motorist on the highways without full
knowledge
of the statutes is like a cow fenced in with invisible electric wire. He
knows
when the limits (statutes) are violated when he experiences the shock
(statutory penalty) after the fact. Uncertain of avoiding future 'unknown
penalties', he consequently lives in a state of perpetual (albeit
concealed)
fear (of the unknown).
Is this demonstrative of a self-governing "free" and Christian people? Or
an
unrily PUBLIC requiring POLICY (regulation) from an external source?
Apparently, the churches/schools failed to teach what the parents also
avoided
- the law of God. Could this be the root problem of our degenerating
society?
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law." 1 Jn. 3:4
And could it be that LAW accomodates the individual who assumes full
liability, while EQUITY (a system of jurisprudence) is that which is
administered for limited-liability "wards of the State"? Since our
Constitutions provide for both, it raises a question:
1. Which system do the Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes represent?
(Law or Equity?)

Thanks again, Mr. Munsen, and I wish not to incur your ire simply because
I've
inquired of the statutes you administer and claim bind upon me. I just
naturally dislike invisible fences.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-March 12, 1986
BRIEF SYNOPSIS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION VIA TACIT PROCURATION
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Upon review of my files, and considering your impatience, perhaps we
could
resolve this situation more quickly without your direct inputs - first by
laying a foundation of material evidence upon which my decisions/actions
are
predicated, followed thereafter by a proxy determination - to which you
may
object.
The following events/terms parallel those which an applicant for MO
Certificate of Title encounters, and while blind obedience is that marvel
of
expedience, reasonable inquiry is the springboard of understanding. So in
the
words of Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together..."
The applicant/moving party REQUESTS a Form DOR-108, seeking a MO
Certificate
of Title from the 'passive' granting party.
"REQUEST, v. To ask for something or for permission to do, see,
hear,
etc., something; to solicit; and is synonymous with beg, entreat and
beseech." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 1468.
The ensuing nexus/relationship between applicant and the granting
party/State
is created by APPLICATION.
"APPLICATION. A putting to, placing before preferring a request or
petition to or before a person." Black's, 4th ed., p. 127.
"PETITION. A written address, embodying an application or prayer
from
the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body or person to
whom it is presented, for...the grant of some FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR
LICENSE." Black's, 4th ed., p. 1302. [my emphasis]

WE MAKE NO APPLICATION FOR 'FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE'; however,

applicants
are presumed to know what it is for which they 'beg or entreat' - else
would
they apply. Likewise, the grantor must know the conditions couched in the
ensuing nexus. Upon returning Form DOR-108, applicants must prove
OWNERSHIP (A
term incomplete in itself) for the item (auto/etc.) in question.
"OWNERSHIP. Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified.
The
ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the
absolute
dominion over it...The ownership is qualified when it is shared with
one
or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited,
or
when the use is restricted." Black's, 5th ed., p. 977.
Liens and/or insurable interests create QUALIFIED ownership in an item,
use
being restricted by contract. The State may also obtain an interest
therein,
although you and Nancy Bemboom assure us no Rights are relinquished
subsequent
to State titling. So ABSOLUTE ownership must meet/exceed your general
terms
'own, owner', etc.
"OWN. To have a good legal TITLE; to hold as property; to have a
legal
or rightful TITLE to; to have; to possess." Black's, 5th ed., p.
996.
[my emph.]
"OWNER. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion or
TITLE of
property...He who has dominion of a thing...which he has a right to
enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as
far as
the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or
covenant
which restrains his right." Ibid, p. 996.
Clearly, the applicant HAS title, else could he sign as the owner (either
absolute or qualified) without committing perjury! But an agent of yours
stated WE DO NOT "OWN" the item covered by an MSO (without lien) and Bill
of
Sale ("paid in full") - rather, the DEALER owns it. Another agent then
declared that at one point "...no one owns it." Mercy! We own it, the
dealer
owns it - NO ONE OWNS IT!

"OWNERSHIP. Collection of rights to use and enjoy property,

including
right to transmit it to others. The COMPLETE dominion, TITLE or
proprietary right in a thing or claim." Ibid, p. 997. [my emph.]
Indeed! TITLE (an intangible appelation called OWNERSHIP) passes from
seller
to buyer at the time of payment - not later, in some Motor Vehicle
Office.
Title cannot pass from the seller to buyer (new OWNER) who mysteriously
recovers it from a third party (State) which was not involved in the
sale!
"Title to said equipment shall remain in the seller, until the
agreed purchase price therefor is paid in full in cash;
thereupon
TITLE TO THE WITHIN DESCRIBED UNIT PASSES TO THE BUYER AS OF THE
DATE OF PAYMENT, even though the actual physical delivery may
not
be made until a later date." Purchasing Agreement per U.C.C.,
Sec.
2-201 (our Owner/Customer copy)
Applicants for MO Certificate of Title prove ownership/TITLE by showing and
then SURRENDERING - the proof (MSO). However, when you want to 'cash'
[sic] a
check, your proof of identification is not surrendered. Something
PARAMOUNT
resides in an MSO, making it the source of the latter/lesser document.
"PARAMOUNT TITLE. In the law of real property, properly one which
is
superior to the title with which it is compared, in the sense
that the
former is the source or origin of the latter." Black's, 5th ed.
,p.
1001.
QUESTION: "Does the applicant surrender...any document when applying for
a
MO Certificate of Title?" (BGM letter of 17 Oct '85)
ANSWWER: "...TITLE MUST BE SURRENDERED with any application for MO
title."
And, "A 'title' as defined in Section 301.190...is a certificate of
ownership
containing...description...with a statement of any liens..." (Nancy
Bemboom
letter of 31 Oct '85)
This describes the MSO, which is the DOCUMENT OF TITLE.

"DOCUMENT OF TITLE. Includes bill of lading...and also any other

document
which in the regular course of business or financing is treated as
adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is
entitled to
receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers."
Black's, 5th ed., p. 432.
This "other document" includes the Certificate of Origin, which neither
"purports" to be a Document of Title, nor an MSO, but is augmented by
another
ownership/title document - the BILL OF SALE.
"BILL OF SALE. Legal document which conveys TITLE from seller to
buyer."
Ibid, p. 149. [my epmh]
"ASSIGNMENT. Tangible property is more often transferred by
possession
and by instruments conveying title such as a deed or a BILL OF
SALE."
Ibid, p. 109. [my emph.]
The bill of sale is obviously a title/ownership document, having been the
INDICIA OF TITLE for more years than not, prior to this recently added
legal
hurdle of a State Certificate of Title.
"INDICIA OF TITLE. Generally, a document evidencing TITLE to
property,
real or personal; e.g., carbon copy of bill of sale to autmobile."
Ibid, p. 694.
Mr. Munsen, am ABSOLUTE owner HAS complete and perfect title. A debtor
does
not, being instead a mere LEGAL owner, subject to the surrender of his
MSO,
perhaps by contract with the bank/etc.
"LEGAL OWNER. One who is recognized and held responsible by the
law
as the owner of property. In a more particular sense, one in whom
the
legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust
for
the benefit of another, the latter being called the EQUITABLE
owner."
Ibid, p. 997. [my emph]
Real ESTATE is our concern, and from the foregoing, an EQUITABLE owner is
considered more lofty than a legal owner.
"EQUITABLE OWNER. One who is recognized in EQUITY as the owner of
property, because the real and beneficial use and title belong to

him, although the bare legal title is vested in another..." Ibid,

p. 996. [my emph]
"EQUITY. ...is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction,
differing in its origin, theory and methods from the common
law...
A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects
independent of law." Ibid, p. 484.
As an aside, both systems (common law and equity) are referred to in the
U.S.
Constitution (Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1, &c.), although most
people
are now subject to equity, having exchanged Rights at Law for government
granted/revokable privileges/"civil rights" - or slavery by
contract/consent,
pursuant to the 13th Amendment. And 'legal' is the mere FORM of law,
while
'lawful' contemplates the SUBSTANCE of law. While one may CONTRACT into
equity, he cannot be lawfully COMPELLED to abandon the Law.
Thus, the MSO is 'voluntarily' surrendered to, and becomes property of,
the
State, which thereafter assumes a correlative interest in the item
covered BY
the MSO. The 'legal' owner uses the car/&c. by 'permit' which he 'begs'
annually - subject to revisable rules.
Many people share ownership with the banks, which protect their interest
in
the cars/&c. by adding another contract - insurance. Hence, the
underwriters
obtain an interest in automobiles/etc. by assuming the greater liability.
The
banks and insurance companies then seek legislation (equity) to regulate
their
limited liability debtors - many of whom act/drive like there will be no
tomorrow.
"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the
lender." Pr. 22:7
The cattle drives are still with us, but the steers are now made of steel
called automobiles, 'tagged' by the 'branding' office (Motor Vehicle
Bureau.
The cowpokes (police) inspect these tags whenever a bad steer is culled
from
the herd, using the tag to ascertain whether any equitable owner has a
'beef'
(ho ho) with the renegate who may have forgotten to make his paymennts,
beg
for an annual permission slip, etc.

Motor Vehicle Bureau has an important

statistical
information on automobiles/etc. which
by
the operators. The 'real' owners have
are, and
this is where you come in - and where

task to keep abreast of the

ramble all over God's earth unowned
a right/need to know where they
we part company.

Equitable owners naturally have a vested interest in the personal habits

of
their operators. For instance, DUI/OUI contributes to many accident
claims, so
those with a vested interest in locating intoxicated motorists have
encouraged
'roadblocks', which violate our Rights at Law. Licensing is the 'legal'
method
to circumvent the law - licensees CONSENTING to statutes which run
COUNTER to
law, subjecting themselves VOLUNTARILY to equity jurisdiction.
This is not to condemn equity itself, but rather the methodology (force
and
deception) used to draw people under its umbrella.
PROXY DETERMINATION
Thus by reason of the foregoing, this Proxy Determination is made to
resolve
the stalemate imposed by your silence, an to let the truth be known.
1. Does Title of auto/etc. pass from seller to buyer at time of payment,
absent lienholder(s)? ANSWER: YES.
2. Does evidence of Absolute and Perfect Title precede a Missouri
Certificate
of Title? ANSWER: YES.
3. Can we obtain a Missouri Registration before receiving a Missouri
Certificate of Title? ANSWER: NO.
4. Can we obtain a Missouri Certificate of Title before surrendering
Title
(per Bemboom 31 Oct '85 and mine (Proxy) 30 Dec '85 and 9 Jan '86)?
ANSWER:
NO.
5. Can we be compelled At Law to surrender Title to that which we own
free and
clear? ANSWER: NO.
6. Failing to voluntarily surrender title pursuant to threat of penalty
imposed in equity, can we be compelled At Law to register auto/etc?
ANSWER:
NO.

7. When do we become subject to Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes? ANSWER:

UPON
APPLICATION FOR FAVOR, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE GOVERNED BY SAID STATUTES.
8. Are these statutes of an At Law or Equity jurisdiction/nature? ANSWER:
EQUITY.
9. Can we be compelled to abandon Rights At Law and/or to seek privileges
in
Equity? ANSWER: NO.
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Therefore, by reason of the foregoing, the party in possession of (and to
whom
is issued) MSO and Bill of Sale (absent lienholders) is the absolute
owner of
said method of conveyance and cannot be compelled to surrender absolute
ownership or ownership documents (e.g., MSO/Document of Title).
The retention of absolute ownership precludes receipt of Missouri
Certificate
of Registration, said Registration contingent upon an application for
Certificate of Title (and surrender of paramount title document/MSO)
which
cannot be compelled At Law.
Therefore, registration/license plates VOLUNTARILY obtained by an
application
of a de jure citizen entering an equity jurisdiction are NOT compellable
At
Law, for one cannot be compelled At Law to abandon Law, nor can one be
compelled by equity to enter equity.
RE: TRAVELER IN HIS PERSON
A traveler using the highways for viatic purposes, not for hire or
compensation, without bond of law (contract) to Motor Vehicle
Departments,
equitable owners or parties with insurable interest, using such
absolutely
owned method of locomotion or conveyance, retains his/her right to travel
At
Law, as distinguished from the mere PRIVILEGE to "drive" under equity
jurisdiction.
A license is a PRIVILEGE, and a PRIVILEGE is permission to do something
against or beyond the course of the law (see Black's). However, the
simple
exercise of one's At Law right to travel is not, and never was, against
or
beyond the course of law.

"Personal liberty, or the right of the enjoyment of life and liberty,

is one
of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not
derived
from or dependent on the U.S. Constitution, and which may not be
submitted
to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one
of the
most sacred and valuable rights, as sacred as the right to private
property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional
Law,
Sec. 202, p. 987.
"Personal liberty largely consists of THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION - to go
where
and when one pleases - only so far restrained as the rights of others
may
make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of
the
citizen TO TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and to transport his
property
thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon OR AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT A MERE
PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, BUT A COMMON
RIGHT
which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal
conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in
public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent
manner,
neither interfering with, nor disturbing another's rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." 11 Am.
Jur.
1st, Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135.
WARNING!!!
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule
making or legislation which could abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona,
384
U.S. 491.
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or
intimidate
any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because
of his having so exercised the same...they shall be fined not more than
$10,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both..." Title 18,
United
States Code, Section 241.

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or

custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, territory or district
to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or
protected by
the Constitution of laws of the United States...shall be fined not more
than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both..." Title 18,
United
States Code, Section 242.
DETERMINATION FINAL
This Determination becomes FINAL if not specifically objected to in
detail
within 14 days of receipt; extension of deadline herein granted if
statutory
provision is cited within the said 14 days.
-------Thank you Mr. Munsen - and rest assured I feel neither bitterness nor
rancor
towards your agency or its officials. You perform an essential service to
and
for Missouri debtors/creditors - but not us.
Dated this 12th day of March 1986.
Pursuant to the Bible doctrine of 'two or three witnesses' (Dt. 19:15,
Mt.
18:16, etc.) we put our hands to this instrument.
_________________
Bruce G. McCarthy

__________________
Janice C. McCarthy

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We certify that due service of the foregoing SYNOPSIS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION has been made upon Mr. Morris D. Munsen, Jr., by U.S. Mail
(Certified - Return Receipt) at his office (Motor Vehicle Bureau, P.O.
Box
100, Jefferson City, MO) on the ____ day of March 1986.
_________________
Bruce G. McCarthy
-March 14, 1986
Missouri Department of Revenue
p.O. Box 475

__________________
Janice C. McCarthy

Jefferson City, MO
65105
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
A quick perusal of our computer files has revealed the following:
1. There are no motor vehicles titled to you in the State of Missouri,
which
is probably just as well, since
2. No Missouri operator's license has been issued to you. We were going
to
contact you by telephone, but
3. There is no telephone listing in your name.
4. Furthermore, we can't seem to find any record of you having paid any
Missouri income tax for the last five (5) years.
Perhaps if you were to give us more accurate information as to your
identity,
we could provide the appropriate responses to your questions.
Sincerely,
James A. Chenault III
Assistant General Counsel
JAC/kv
cc: Morris Munsen
-March 18, 1986
Dear Mr. Chenault:
Thank you for the communique (14 Mar '86), although the answers to my
five
essential questions of 10 Feb '86 were conspicuous by their absence. Have
we a
communications problem? Or was this a response only to my 12 Mar '86
Synopsis/
Proxy Determination?
Has it become your duty to enter the 'objections' as necessary? I only
need
the name/title ('identity') of the person handling this case at present,
having already been re-routeed twice. I suspect target identification is
going
to be more challenging for my side than yours, unaware as to how many
others
there in Jefferson City may ultimately share in resolving my concerns.

Your interest in my identity apparently extends beyond my person,

encompassing
any acquisitions and extraneous matters of pecuniary import, suggesting
yours
could be a mind which strays easily from the topic at hand. Nothing you
mentioned had a direct relevance to my inquiries. If my 'motor vehicles'
were
state 'titled' (#1), the issue would be moot, assuming I had a motor
vehicle
by your definition - which I'm not sure.
The existence of a Missouri 'operator's license' (#2) is not at issue as
yet,
nor the fact (#3) that I have no listed telephone number. But you're
lucky you
didn't reach me, as I'm prone to be long-winded.
And what, pray tell, does the payment of Missouri income taxes (#4) have
to do
with what I've asked and whether I'm entitled to an answer? I want to
know
something BEFORE we get hitched - rather than wait 'til the honeymoon is
over.
Is that unreasonable?
Providing any information necessary to help resolve this quagmire would
be my
greatest wish, but I'm inclined to believe you are in possession of this,
and
not I. If not, what is the 'more accurate information' you need
concerning my
'identity'? Would there be a substantial difference in your 'appropriate
responses' were these questions to emanate from a prospective teenage
automobile owner? Or a retired Alaskan pipefitter? Before anyone makes
application, they have both a need and a right to know EXACTLY what it is
they
will incur - don't you agree?
Meanwhile, I'm confident your office possesses the wherewithal to answer
the
five questions outstanding sine the 10th of February. May I count on your
support?
Thanks Mr. Chenault.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-March 19, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:

You seem to have missed the point of my last letter. The point is: the
taxpayers of Missouri pay our salaries here at the Department of Revenue.
I am
sure the taxpayers of this fair state would be outraged over the amount
of
their time and money we have spent thus far attempting to satiate one who
is
not to be found in their ranks.
I do not believe I can, in good conscience, continue to expend their
funds on
this matter.
Sincerely,
James A. Chenault III
Assistant General Counsel
JAC/kv
cc: Morris Munsen
-March 22, 1986
Dear Mr. Chenault:
By the tenor of your terse remarks (19 Mar '86), it would seem you have
been
endowed with an even greater deficiency of patience than the last two DOR
agents. And sorry I missed the point. Maybe you'd do better to express
and
stress it next time, for those of us lacking the perspicacity to probe
such
profundities.
Apparently, the out of state 'new arrival' is entitled to no more
courtesy
than your 'native son' whose name has yet to be recorded in your 'book of
life' (dossier). Such callousness seems somewhat out of character for one
who
champions the 'taxpayers [and future taxpayers?] of this fair state'.
Your
concern for the prudent use of "taxpayer's time and money" is laudable
indeed,
for we do not wish to cause an 'outraged' citizenry. But you failed to
consider my potential outrage pursuant to an eight month runaround. Why?
To allay your good conscience and stem a potential mass uprising, I will
gladly pay the monetary cost of this contest. Identify the 'money'
(expressed
in dollars) currently used by your agency, and I will begin by sending
you 100

POUNDS of it! This should satiate your thirst for funds and thus lift
this
grievous burden from the shoulder of our toiling masses. Then, maybe I
will
also be 'found in their ranks' - counted as one of your productive
drones.
Meanwhile, Mr. Munsen's time (re Administrate Determination by Proxy) is
running. Why not give him a hand.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-March 25, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
The answers to the five questions presented in your letter to me of
February
10, 1986 are as follows:
1. I personally am not "absolutely certain" that the state of Missouri
may
"lawfully compel" a Missouri citizen to apply for a Missouri
Certificate
of Title to a vehicle within thirty days of its purchase. Missouri
law,
however, does certainly REQUIRE such an action on the part of
Missouri
citizens.
2. Natural persons become subject to Missouri's titling and registration
laws
thirty days after establishing residency in Missouri.
3. A complete set of Missouri Motor Vehicle Statutes is not "issued" to
all
license, registration and title applicants. Missouri citizens are
presumed
to know the laws of the state.
4.

You may correctly consider the title, "not to be construed with a

certificate/document OF title", to be "an intangible appelation
called
ownership".
5.

Title, i.e., ownership, does pass from seller to buyer upon the valid
assignment of a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin or a Certificate

of
Title. To effect a valid assignment of title to a vehicle, the
acknowledgment of assignment by the owner before a notary public is
mandatory.

Mr. McCarthy, I realize we could go on trading questions and answers in

this
vein for quite some time. My concern is not that I cannot answer your
questions, but rather that we avoid a situation where there is no final
answer, merely a series of exchanges which never narrows to the point.
I trust my letter has provided your final answer on this matter.
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
-April 2, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Thank you for the candid response to my five questions of 10 Feb '86, and
I
cannot overemphasize my sincere desire to sidestep all needless conflict,
nor
is it my intent to create a situation with no final answer, although we
could
have gotten to the point a bit sooner with more honest and complete
answers.
Consider, for example, the baffling response of Nancy Bemboom (31 Oct
'85) in
which she stated, "A Missouri Certificate of Title...is the only proof of
ownership." There are probably many who hold this belief, but popular
delusion
is no less delusion. Applicants must first PROVE ownership, however,
before
obtaining their "only proof of ownership". Oh dear. Either an applicant
commits perjury, or someone at your office made a false statement. Please
help
me.
1. Is ownership made imperfect, perhaps by contract, the buyer somehow
absent
Property Right until a duty is rendered to the State of Missouri?
I feel as though you may have tried to tell me something - that I don't
own an
item, or have any property right in it, unless I first satisfy the State
of
Missouri by jumping through a few "statutory hoops". Now to your letter.

Re the 30 day requirement. It appears by the wording of your MO

Certificate of
Title ("You must apply...within 30 days...or pay a delinquent penalty.")
that
the requirement is merely to avoid a penalty if one wishes to apply
later, the
'fee' serving as an inducement to volunteer/apply early. By your
omission, we
are led to believe one can simply be compelled to apply.
Next. If one is subject to the MO Motor Vehicle Statutes solely on the
basis
of 30 days residence, this would cover all natural persons regardless of
age
or mental acuity. However, I question whether a five or ten year old
child is
chargeable under your statutes. Have we another omission?
2. Is there no requirement to first APPLY for something (license, etc.)
covered by the Motor Vehicle Statutes before becoming subject to them?
I'm not trying to quarrel with every jot and tittle, but consider a pilot
who
becomes incapacitated, his unlicensed passenger then taking the controls
to
land the airplane. I seriously doubt the passenger would (or COULD) be
cited
for operating an airplane without a license, having never created the
administrative nexus by which he becomes subject to the applicable
statutes.
The idea that Missouri citizens are "presumed to know the laws"
challenges all
common sense (which isn't too common), especially considering the
proliferation of 'revised' statutes. To know all statute law is
IMPOSSIBLE and
DOUBLY ABSURD when the statutes are withheld from applicants who cannot
'know'
them all in the first place. To retain this presumption, there would have
to
be a voluntary act of application by a moving party, presumed to know
what it
was for which he freely, without coercion, made application.
3. Am I right? If not, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
Thank you for the assistance, Mr. Munsen, trusting these last three
questions
will obviate additional queries. It's evident by your express and tacit
determinations that we have NO EXISTING CONTROVERSY regarding my Right to
Travel (versus mere 'privilege' to 'drive'), and these will serve as my
material evidence if ever contested. Your cooperation has been
appreciated,

but if I've erred, and there IS an existing controversy, by all means let
me
know what it is so we can resolve this like gentlement. Further, if you
object
to my Tender of Issue, namely the Right to Travel, I'd certainly enjoy
your
views, lest I err in holding to a delusion of freedom we no longer retain
as
the 'posterity' spoken of in the Constitutional Preamble of 1787.
Thanks again Mr. Munsen!
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-April 4, 1986
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Listed below are the answers to your three questions of April 2, 1986.
QUESTION 1: "Is ownership made imperfect, perhaps by contract, the buyer
somehow absent Property Right until a duty is rendered to the
State of Missouri?" ANSWER: No.
QUESTION 2: "Is there no requirement to first APPLY for something
(license,
etc.) covered by the Motor Vehicle Statutes before becoming
subject to them?" ANSWER: No.
QUESTION 3: "Am I right? If not, PLEASE CORRECT ME." ANSWER: You are
wrong.
The presumption that citizens of the State of Missouri know
its
laws is founded on the well-settled rule that ignorance of
the
law is no excuse for violating it.
Thank you for the compliment on my "candid" response to your previous
letter
of February 10, 1986. Please allow me one observation. The eight months
you
have spent in this quest could have been shortened considerably had you
refrained from convoluted analogies and, in your own words, "gotten to
the
point a bit sooner with more honest and complete answers". Please feel
free to
use any of my responses as "material evidence" when you are arrested for
driving an improperly registered motor vehicle in the State of Missouri.
Although the arresting officer and the court may find my letters
instructional, those officers will, no doubt, quickly come to the point
with

an "honest and complete" request to see your Missouri certificate of

registration. Of course, we know that you will not have one, because you
have
spent eight months gathering valuable "material evidence" from my office
in
order to stall application for Missouri title and registration documents.
You
may discover at that point that Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers
are
also quite "candid".
Sincerely,
Morris D. Munsen, Jr., Manager
Motor Vehicle Bureau
MDM:lo
-May 1, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of April 4, but I
was out
of state awhile and later taken ill.
And sorry you were confused by my analogies.
Re in "improperly registered motor vehicle": How can an item which is not
registered be registered improperly? And what is a "motor vehicle" by
unabridged statutory definition? California statutes define one as a
"...contrivance...used for commercial purposes...", which no doubt
everyone is
presumed to know. But how we are presumed to know every esoteric
statutory
definition and requirement is beyond me, although people are often
willing to
subject themselves to the unknown and unknowable.
Now to your answers.
#1 Re: Perfect ownership. We agree - I think. Absolute owner has perfect
title
before the State enters the picture. He has absolute property (right to
possess and use lawfully) which cannot be taken away by statute, absent
contract. You probably disagree, believing all statutes are Law, even if
contravening Constitutional and/or Biblical Law. Right or wrong?
#2 Re: Subject to statute by application. We disagree. But it seems only
reasonable that one must apply for a privilege or benefit to become
subject to

the coorelative statutes, lest everyone, regardless of age, mental

competence,
habitat, etc., be made subject to ALL existing statute. The application
secures a common law property element - signature - which is a sign of
voluntary consent, which creates a 'bond of law' binding the applicant.
Perhaps one of my "convoluted analogies" will help. Two similar vans
approach
a weigh station, one pulling onto the scales, the other whistling on by.
One
is subject to statutes not binding the other, the driver on the scales
"presumed to know" he's required to stop, the other "presumed to know"
he's
not. Each is presumed to know the statutes governing the benefit they
freely
sought by application. And when differences exist between them, one must
surely exist between an applicant (subject to law of contract) and a nonapplicant (subject to Law).
Trucks subject to weigh stations share several indicia in common, by the
way:
1. They are owned by "corporations" (creatures of the state, thus subject
to
control by their creator) - corporate status sought by application.
2. They use I.C.C. numbers - obtained by application.
3. They have commercial plates - by application.
4. The 'operators' are licensed - by application.
5. Neither the operator nor the companies absolutely own the truck,
trailer or
contents. Others (e.g., banks) claim equitable ownership, these debts
also
incurred by application.
The legal status of truckers APPEARS to be weight related, but other
considerations weigh more heavily, which is why motorhomes ignore weigh
stations while lighter vans may have to enter. Each is bound to the
appropriate statutes - by contract - which is why APPLICATION is
essential to
cementing the nexus between the applicant and the statutes he is
"presumed to
know". Isn't this reasonable?
#3 Re: Presumption of knowledge. We disagree. But we must surely agree
that it
is IMPOSSIBLE to know ALL statute law. OK? And no man is bound to an
impossibility. Right? Binding people to such an absurdity would make
statute
law itself absurd. Ignorance of God's law, however, is without excuse
(Ro.

1:20),
Israel
cannot
find a
we
cannot

since it is written on the heart and inward parts (conscience?) of

and Judah (Jer. 31:31-34 and He. 8:8-10). This might be why we
statute to assert the "well-settled rule" of presumption - a rule
find, but which came from the (Anglo-American) common law.

"Under the common law, a principle was adopted that ignorance of the
law is
no excuse for a violation of law. (This principle is sometimes stated
that
every person is presumed to know the law.) This principle was practical
and
workable under the early common law which was based on the mores of the
people." Trial by Jury, Samuel W. McCart, Member of the District of
Columbia
Bar, p. 16 (1964).
The "mores" of the people refers to our conscience (law in the heart)
which
served as the foundation for our common law and the idea that a moral
jury
would nullify bad law by voting their conscience. This principle was
'practical and workable' - once.
"Statute law brought in, and continues to bring in, new and sometimes
strange restraints and obligations. It is not possible any longer for
an intelligent and educated person to know all statute law - let alone
an illiterate or ignorant person." Ibid, p. 16.
So the practical and workable has become impossible. Mr. Munsen, I don't
wish
to belabor this subject, nor to debate you by mail. But do we agree that
there
is confusion in a system where a person is presumed to know the
impossible,
while bound thereby? Otherwise, our correspondence suggests we are agreed
as
follows:
WE CANNOT GET A REGISTRATION PLATE WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION, WHICH IN TURN, CANNOT BE OBTAINED WITHOUT FIRST GETTING A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BUT TO GET THIS, WE MUST FIRST SURRENDER THE TITLE
WHICH NO ABSOLUTE OWNER CAN BE COMPELLED TO DO.
THUS WE RETAIN AND EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITH AUTOMOBILE, ETC.,
AND
HAVE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT WE HAVE NO SUCH
RIGHT
HERE IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI, OR ELSEWHERE.

YOU CONSENTED TO THIS DETERMINATION - VIA TACIT PROCURATION. IF

EXERCISING A
RIGHT TO TRAVEL WAS UNLAWFUL, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED ME OF THE
CRIME AT
LAW (NOT ADMIRALTY/EQUITY/ETC.), AND SIMULTANEOUSLY STATED, "BRUCE G.
MCCARTHY
DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL ON MISSOURI HIGHWAYS VIA AUTOMOBILE OR
OTHER
SUCH METHOD OF CONVEYANCE."
Mr. Munsen, I again assure you that I feel neither bitterness nor rancor
towards you, your agency or the Highway Patrol. All of you perform an
essential service for the many who are subject to contract law
(Admiralty,
Equity, etc.). Your pertinent questions and comments are appreciated, and
I
certainly want to resolve any conflict or misunderstanding arising from
this
correspondence.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy
-June 7, 1986
Dear Mr. Munsen:
Receiving no reply to my May 1, 1986 correspondence causes me to conclude
there is no existing controversy. We apparently concur; one's right to
absolute ownership of conveyance and right to travel are preserved,
absent
contract (e.g., with Motor Vehicle Bureau) to mitigate them.
We recognize, however, most automobile "owners" have applied for bank
credit/
debt, limited liability (insurance) - and a license (privilege) from the
State, to do what they otherwise could have done by right, were it not
for
their self-imposed 'fetters'. So these people ("...those bound to Service
for
a Term of Years..." - Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, U.S.
Constitution)
waived Rights At Law, "choosing" your system of administrative statutes.
Absent any license/contract/benefit which would waive my Rights to Travel
and
Absolute Ownership, these rights remain intact and inviolate - so long as
they
are claimed. IF THIS IS NOT SO, PLEASE ADVISE, so I can correct/amend my
position.

I'm hoping to resolve all possible disputes with Missouri MVD first,
believing
my connection to/with 'police enforced' MVD statutes begins by contract/
application for grant of privilege, license or benefit from MVD - or even
other agencies. To reconcile our differences on this point, please
IDENTIFY
(select as many choices as you need) the NATURE of the body of law that
you
administer:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Admiralty/Maritime
Law Merchant
Roman Civil Law
Anglo-American Common Law and/or Law of God
Equity
Other_______________________________________

Please help me resolve our differences, after which I'll compile and
submit a
list of points/elements to show where we agree. This will narrow the
issues,
and could save us considerable time later.
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with
him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and
the
judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
Mt. 5:25
Direct, clear and honest communication can avert serious disputes if
we'll
take the time and make the effort. At any rate, I'd sure prefer (if I had
my
'druthers) not to be delivered to the judge.
Thank you for your time and consideration Mr. Munsen.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. McCarthy

-And there the matter rests.