I received the email below. I haven’t verified the source or the relevant laws of “COLORADO” (“this state”). More, even if the email’s allegations are true for “COLORADO,” that doesn’t mean that they would also be true for other administrative divisions (like “TEXAS” or “ILLINOIS”) of “this state”.
Nevertheless, this email has both the ring of truth and of brilliance. The insight offered is so damn simple that, if true, every student of traffic laws should be embarrassed to have overlooked such an obvious truth for so long.
Apparently, the email’s subject (“James”) read the “COLORADO” laws concerning vehicle registration. He realized that while “registration” of “motor vehicles” was required by state law, that law did not adequately define “motor vehicles” and did not specify where such “motor vehicles” must be “registered”.
Everyone presumes that their “motor vehicles” must be registered with their “state’s” version of a “Department of Motor Vehicles” (which, incidentally, is probably a private corporation).
Why do we make that presumption? Because when a new car is purchased, the buyer pays to price of the automobile to the dealer and then also pays an addition fee to “this state” for “Tax, Title and License”.
I’ll bet that every automobile dealer is licensed by “this state” to sell “in this state”. I’ll bet that it’s nigh unto impossible to persuade a licensed automobile dealer to sell you a vehicle without you “voluntarily” agreeing to also pay “Tax, Title and License” to register the new vehicle “in this state”.
Later, when you (the original car buyer) sells your used car to some new purchaser, the new purchaser will see the registration decal on the windshield and the registration papers in the glove compartment and simply presume that: 1) the original buyer registered the vehicle properly with “this state’s” department of motor vehicles; and 2) the new purchaser must continue to register with the same department.
But insofar as the state law did not specify where the vehicle must be “registered,” James decided to “register” his vehicle by using a UCC-1 form filed with the Colorado office of the Secretary of State. James challenged that presumption that the vehicle must be registered with the department of motor vehicles.
As required by law, James did “register” his vehicle . . . somewhere. But he didn’t register the vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles–he registered with the Secretary of State. By using a UCC-1 filed with the Secretary of State, James apparently created evidence that he–rather than “COLORADO” owned the particular vehicle. By doing so, he challenged the power of “COLORADO” to control the operation of his vehicle.
The UCC-1 can be one of, perhaps the, highest evidence of ownership of a particular property or thing. I presume that James filled out his UCC-1 so as to declare that he owned all right, title and interest in his “vehicle”. By doing so, he probably created evidence that he–rather than “COLORADO”–owned his vehicle.
“COLORADO” could probably dispute James’ claim of ownership–provided that “COLORADO” could produce the actual title (Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin; MSO) to the vehicle and prove that “COLORADO” owned that title and was therefore the true owner of the vehicle.
But there’ve been unconfirmed reports for at least 15 years that when the MSO is voluntarily sent to the “STATE” as part of the “Tax, Title and License,” the “STATE” creates a digital image of the MSO and then destroys the actual MSO (or some say, sells the actual MSO to some US or even foreign bank to be used as collateral for making loans). I don’t know what the truth is about how the “STATE” handles MSO’s, but I do know that if they can’t produce the actual, original MSO, they have virtually no legitimate basis for claiming ownership of a particular property or vehicle.
I believe the fundamental reason that we must have drivers licenses and insurance as conditions prerequisite to drive the automobiles we’ve purchased is that the original buyer voluntarily donated his MSO (title) to the “STATE” as part of the purchase agreements. (Remember? The cost of a particular car might be $20,000–”plus, Tax, Title and License”. The first buyer paid an extra fee to the “STATE” to compensate the “STATE” for assuming the legal title and consequent obligation to controlling the operation of the vehicle.). Thus, the “STATE” is presumed to own legal title to the vehicle and is thereby empowered and even obligated to control who can use the vehicle and under what conditions.
For example, if the “STATE” (as opposed to “The State”) owns legal title to “your” automobile, the “STATE” has every right to declare that it will only allow its vehicle to be driven by someone who has a drivers license. That requirement for a drivers license is not imposed by “law,” but by private law relating to the private ownership of the vehicle. More, if the “STATE’s” vehicle is not currently insured, that “STATE” will not allow it to be driven by anyone.
Today, the “STATE’s” claim to own legal title to the vehicle is reportedly based on the existence of a digital copy of the original MSO. So long as no one produces a higher form of evidence of ownership of a particular vehicle, the “STATE” will be able to control the operation of its vehicle.
James has apparently deduced that an actual, signed and registered UCC-1 can be a higher form of evidence of ownership than a mere copy of a now missing MSO. More, James has demonstrated an apparent brilliance in that he: 1) read the relative registration requirement laws; 2) realized that the “STATE” does not specify where to “register” his vehicle, and 3) therefore registered the vehicle by means of a UCC-1 with his Secretary of State rather than the local version of a “department of motor vehicles”.
James reportedly proceeded to devise his own “sovereign” license plate to indicate that his vehicle: 1) is registered with the Secretary of State: 2) is owned by James; 3) is not owned by “COLORADO”; and 4) is therefore not subject to the traffic laws of ”COLORADO”.
Of course, James was subsequently stopped for driving with a “sovereign” license plate and ticketed for “no registration”. His vehicle was towed. It cost James $250 to retrieve his vehicle the following day. He went to court, argued that the “registration” laws were unconstitutionally vague and that he had registered with the Secretary of State . . . you can read the result in the following email:
“James showed up in court at 8:30 A.M. this morning, with his paper work, and the D.A. asked him why his vehicle wasn’t registered. James pointed out (1) that it was registered under the UCC with the Secretary of State but not NMTRD, and (2) that Colorado’s law was void for vagueness; that is, Colorado law required registration but did not inform its citizens of where and when and with whom an automobile had to be registered ;. . . or if even private property had to be registered with the state.
““What is a sovereign plate?” asked the D.A. and the judge. James answered, “It is a notice this is private property not subject to regulation by the state . . . that this truck is not used in commerce . . . ” “Uh . . er . . .uh . . .O.K.” said the D.A.
“James asked, “Your law says a vehicle has to be registered” but your law does not define “vehicle” nor say where it has to be registered. I presume the law is talking about state vehicles owned and operated by the state or those operating in commerce. Further, where must your commercial vehicles be registered? The law does not say!! Do you want them registered at the bulletin board at the local 7-Eleven Store, or the local librarian, or the county clerk, or posted on a telephone pole. My private truck is registered with the highest authority in the State of New Mexico—the Secretary of State. My truck is competently registered and you must dismiss this case. You have no claim on me or my private property.
““O.K.” said the D.A. “Case dismissed” declared the judge. [James was stunned by the ignorance of the court officers . . . and the fact that 100 victims set in the courtroom didn’t have a clue what just happened.]
“James is going to bill the police officer for impounding his truck without cause.
In fact, if this email is true, it’s only an anecdote. It doesn’t prove anything. But it is evidence that a careful reading of the vehicle registration laws in your “STATE” might provide the basis for some amazing challenges to governmental power.
It’s all about reading.
In this case, James read the relevant vehicle registration laws and–astonishingly–observed the obvious: the laws didn’t specify where a vehicle must be registered. From that one observation, we might see an increase in freedom.
One more point: We might suppose that the failure to specify the place or agency where a vehicle must be registered is simply an enormous oversight by the people writing the laws of “this state”. OK–maybe they screwed up in “COLORADO,” but the remainder of the administrative divisions of “this state” will not have made the same mistake. More, “COLORADO” may soon correct the error discovered by James.
But maybe the failure to specify where the vehicle must be registered is not an oversight. That omission might be critical to the operation of the current traffic law “system”.
Why? Because if the “The State/this state” hypothesis is valid, it appears that we can’t be coerced into “this state” and can only enter “voluntarily“. To act “voluntarily” presumes that a man must be in position to choose one of several options. If the the current vehicle registration laws specified where the vehicle must be registered “in this state,” such registration could not be deemed to “voluntary”. It’s only when the place/agency of registration is unspecified that an implied choice is present and thus the act of registration “in this state” can be deemed voluntary.
Could it be that James has stumbled onto the fundamental choice to register his property, his vehicle, perhaps even himself (?) within “The State” (with the Secretary of State?) or “in this state” (with the department of motor vehicles)? Is registration something akin to “identification” in the sense that if I register my property “in this state” I “identify” with “this state” and voluntarily subject myself and my proprty to the rules and regulations of “this state”? On the other hand, if I register with “The State,” do I voluntarily identify with and subject myself and my property to the laws of The State of Texas?
I expect to have a better understanding of these possibilities over the next week or two as some who read this article write comments to tell us whether their “state’s” vehicle registration rules do or do not specify the place/agency where the vehicle must be registered. If it turns out that all other “states” specify where the vehicle must be registered, then the “COLORADO” regulations are probably just an error. If it turns out that a significant number of other “states” also fail to specify where a vehicle must be registered, then we may be seeing a very important possibility. And if it turns out that all other “states” also fail to specify where a vehicle must be registered, then I’d bet we’ve stumbled onto a profound insight: we have the freedom to choose whether we want to register our property “in this state” or “within The State”.
There’s also question as to whether the UCC-1 is a good choice. My understanding is that all things “UCC” are “in this state”. A UCC-1 may be sufficient to stop a claim by “this state” that it owns title to your property “in this state”. The UCC-1 may still constitute evidence that the property is owned by you rather than “COLORADO,” but still be evidence that the property remains “in this state”. As such, a UCC-1 may not be an effective means to claim sovereignty. In fact, using a UCC-1 may tend to compromise any claims of individual sovereignty.
So, it may well be that there’s another means of registering your property with The State that is vastly superior to using a UCC-1. If we keep looking, we’ll find it.
But even if the UCC-1 is less than an ideal means to remove our property from “this state,” James has shown us reason to suspect that the “where” in vehicle registration laws may be intentionally unspecified in order to create evidence that we can each choose to make our property subject to the rules of “this state”. If so, there must be another option whereby we can make our property subject to the laws of “The State”. If we can find that other option, we might be able to walk out from under drivers licenses, vehicle insurance, property taxes, and the heavy-handed control of “this state”.
Finally, If there’s one lie in the email above, it’s the title’s reference to “a small victory”. If James’ story turns out to be true, his “victory” is far from “small”.