Many of the blog posts here on Governmental Services Corporation Watch have relied upon the evidence on the State of Washington Corporation – Warrant Processing Division website. The legal fictional BAR Attorneys seem to have gotten wise to the obviousness of the following text on such a governmental website:
As it is seen here:
A warrant – or check – is a legal, negotiable instrument drawn against the state treasury in place of a commercial bank. State agencies disburse funds to vendors or other payees by issuing warrants from the state treasury that bears the State Treasurer’s unique Routing Number and are signed by the State Treasurer.
Because the responsibility for authorizing and producing warrants resides with individual state agencies, inquiries about a payment made by a state agency should be directed to the issuing agency.
On February 10, 1987, Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor Denise Rottero told Judge Geer how Tennessee’s auto registration works.
The process begins with the “surrender” of the Manufacturer’ s Statement of Origin (MSO) [ED: MCO] by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue in exchange for Certificate of Title. Asked if a MSO is proof of ownership -Legal title -to the automobile. Ms. Rottero said, “Yes”
“Are you telling me that the ownership of an automobile is NOT title; it’s merely evidence that title exists. Your car’s legal TITLE is the MSO, which the dealer surrendered to the state.” Ms. Rottero said the MSO [ED: MCO] is put on microfilm for permanent keeping, the original destroyed.
Unable to compel drivers to give blood or breathe into a machine, these states made it a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a police demand to do so. These states justify their laws based on two legal fictions — that driving is a “privilege, not a right,” and that by driving a car that the driver impliedly consents to have his blood and breath searched. In effect, these states give a driver the choice to either surrender his rights or go directly to jail.
Based on its “privacy rights” analysis, the Supreme Court of Minnesota came to the bizarre conclusion that the government can do literally anything it wants to a person’s body “incidental” to his being arrested.
North Dakota not only claimed complete sovereignty over the body of an arrested person, but, by doing so, the state denigrated the right of the people to use an automobile to facilitate full participation in the nation’s economy.
While exploring acquiring the original MCO for a vehicle from the State of Michigan, the unequivocal answer is: No, the MCO will not be returned.
Once it is surrendered, that is it. All the phone techs for the SECRETARY OF STATE had no idea the legal implications of an MCO, or directed me to the Legal Department.
Of note, The phone technician said that a State Certificate of Title is a CONTINUATION of the original title. Another tech in Indiana said that they cannot delete the digital copies so they can be provided for former represented “owners”.
Mainly, at the port of exportation, CBP needs to be presented with a US CERTIFICATE OF TITLE for the VIN.
The Port of Exportation for a World Citizen converting their motor vehicles is in the privacy of personal matters… Thus there is no C.B.P. to present any TITLE of the VIN.
The above makes a lot of sense… The MANUFACTURER’S STATEMENT OF ORIGIN in the Foreign Country would then be the Berthing of the vehicle into the Foreign Country.
In Canada, the Government would simply create one and/or a ship-yard that berths a motor vehicle from the vessel at see… in other words, the manifest of each motor vehicle vessel from the manifest of each vessel
This is a very interesting PDF documenting the relationship between a STATE issued CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, a Title (MCO), and a Statement of Origin.
Before there is a STATE issued VEHICLE TITLE, the vehicle is (likely) sitting in a registered dealer’s lot. While it sits there, the registered dealer has a MANUFACTURER’S CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN. According to: