Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Certificate of Origin

  1. #11
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    I once heard a story through the grapevine same kind of situation this man told them that since you took it from a location they need to return it to that same location,
    they gave him problems with that, but after he contacted the judge to let him know since they took away his ability to travel they must restore that right. The vehicle
    was delivered the next day.

    So now you know that sometimes events cannot be proven because of circumstances.
    We do know and acknowledge that. But as you see, what transpired was that the car was impounded and "tickets" were issued while utilizing this "method". This is not a "success story" other than the claim that the car was returned after 14 months of impound. Utilizing proper and lawful R4C to abate those presentments is a foundation of fundamental law; the right to refuse or avoid contract. The only thing left to actually prove in this anecdote is to view the paperwork when the car was returned in order to determine if "money" was paid to release it or not. We cannot conclude on that without that evidence.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    We do know and acknowledge that. But as you see, what transpired was that the car was impounded and "tickets" were issued while utilizing this "method". This is not a "success story" other than the claim that the car was returned after 14 months of impound. Utilizing proper and lawful R4C to abate those presentments is a foundation of fundamental law; the right to refuse or avoid contract. The only thing left to actually prove in this anecdote is to view the paperwork when the car was returned in order to determine if "money" was paid to release it or not. We cannot conclude on that without that evidence.
    neither can we conclude that the abatement really happened without proof, i have heard similar stories where one thing worked but the other did in a process if you can see my point here?

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    I once heard a story through the grapevine same kind of situation this man told them that since you took it from a location they need to return it to that same location,
    they gave him problems with that, but after he contacted the judge to let him know since they took away his ability to travel they must restore that right. The vehicle
    was delivered the next day.

    So now you know that sometimes events cannot be proven because of circumstances.

    That's an interesting lesson in perceptions. I said along the way that the demand to show process-to-results documentation was a demand you are making on yourself. Very true. I am not making the demand on you. I simply require it to believe you.

    It is you who wants to be believed. As do I. Therefore I show people, and so do you. When you don't, I cannot allow the testimony in my court. But I can make note of it for later, like the Agreement with your sheriff. Even though you did not show us the agreement, you have a witness (MJ) that it happened and so I dissected the details you would give us.

  4. #14
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    neither can we conclude that the abatement really happened without proof, i have heard similar stories where one thing worked but the other did in a process if you can see my point here?
    I do see your point, however the premise of whether or not it "worked" depends on proper record forming. As courts of competent jurisdiction, one forms and keeps the complete and lawful record of events; the most accurate and lawful record is superior. The presentment is just that; a contract "offer", or better yet, novation. Why do you think they need and request your 'signature' continually?

    The right of refusal is not some "paytriot" scheme; it is a fundamental right and maxim of law. If one is competent and self-governing in one's own affairs, then part of that competence is keeping the lawful record. Utilizing the accepted and recognized 'clerk of court' to file and obtain certified copies of one's lawful clerical process is in our own right in order to conduct our own affairs peaceably amidst the others around us. It is a form of 'communication' only utilizing the "language" and "tools" understood by the overwhelming majority we may encounter along our path, while not divesting one iota of our inherent rights and immunities.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    you have a witness (MJ) that it happened and so I dissected the details you would give us.
    You have a private gift eventually that will be passed on to you that you may not know about yet, ask MJ about it.

  6. #16
    That's Cool!

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    This owner paid off his car and had the Certificate of Title from the State. The MSO (Bill of Lading) of course had been destroyed two years after the original dealer sent it in when the car was sold off the lot.
    Woah, woah, woah.... an MSO is a bill of lading??

    If that is the case, then one delivers their car to the State by handing them the MSO/MCO.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 04-15-11 at 09:17 PM.

  8. #18
    From what I gathered from Rod Class, the car is securitized (like stock) for the State to make money.

    If this is the case, the State is trustee of the vehicle?
    The certificate of title is similar to a document granting right of use?

  9. #19
    Fed notes are stock that is designed to depreciate too. Cars depreciate pretty quickly.

    Truth be told that is the only thing that makes the Fed an agency (instrumentality) of the US Government. It is illegal to allow stock certificates (FRNs) to intentionally depreciate over time because it is bad fiduciary. Irresponsible as trustee (Congress/Fed Act).

    I remember finding that elucidated in one of the linked cases on this case (attached). I have tried to rediscover which link and failed. Of course I was only interested because we find contention between the same priestcraft - FRB v. METRO.

    With Rod though, he apparently has made a claim to success in courtrooms and Trust Guy is asking for an evidence package - like a Register of Action, Summons and accompanying transcript. It can be sanitized. Fine! Just so that it is convincing that Rod knows how do document a success if he intends to brag about it over the Internet or whatever.

    When something like that happens I may look into Rod CLASS doctrine a bit closer.

    I know a fellow who purchased the MSO for cash on an eduro motorbike. No problems but then he does not spend a lot of time on the streets. - Sometimes just to get up into the hills to the trails.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    It is my understanding and research that a Bill of Sale and the MSO/MCO are separate and distinct entities.

    The MSO/MCO is not muniment of title.
    The Bill of Sale is the highest form of title.
    I have a notarized Bill of Sale from when I bought my car, but I also have a Certificate of Title (CoT) because I bought my car a couple years ago before I started learning anything about the Law. Would I be able to rescind my CoT because I have the notarized Bill of Sale, or would I have to perfect the CoT first because I already consented to the security agreement that created the security interest evidenced by the Certificate?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •