A Letter to the California DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
C/o Box 1755] U.S.P.S. [A private Corporation]
Nevada City, California, u.S.A.
February 1999

[Address valid as of February, 1999] To: Office of Director
Department of Motor Vehicles (a California Corporation)
2415 1st Ave. MS-F101
Sacramento, CA 95818

Dear Director/Acting Director/Assistant Director:

Notice: D.M.V. (a California Corporation) is in Default of a positive duty to both the State of California and to me under Vehicle Code section 4851 and under Vehicle Code section 4450.

I am frankly at a loss to understand the behavior of the Department of Motor Vehicles (D.M.V.), so this is an inquiry into certain curious transactions I have had with your Department.

1. I believe D.M.V. has never issued legal license plates to my vehicle [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!] in the entire time it has been "Registered" in California, and to my certain knowledge, since 1988 when I purchased it.

I bought my vehicle from a private party in 1988 for cash money of the United States of America and it came to me with an attached camper shell and two license plates (reading "CALIFORNIA" and [specific plate number]) attached to and displayed respectively on the front and the rear of the vehicle and bearing year tabs on the rear plate which read "CA". Both parties completed and submitted to D.M.V. the necessary transfer documents and D.M.V. issued to me a "Validated Registration Card" and timely, a "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE".

According to the Vehicle Code, section 4851, which has not substantially changed since 1959,
Vehicle Code (1959) and (1998), Section 4851 said license plates should each read "California" or "Cal.":

"Every license plate shall have displayed upon it the registration number assigned to the vehicle for which it is issued, together with the word "California" or the abbreviation "Cal." and the year number for which it is issued or a suitable device issued by the department for validation purposes, which device shall contain the year number for which issued."

According to the California Vehicle Code, section 4853 said tabs should comply with section 4851 as much as is physically possible:

Vehicle Code (1959) and (1998), Section 4853:
"The department may issue one or more stickers, tabs, or other suitable devices in lieu of the license plates provided for under this code. Except where the physical differences between the stickers, tabs, or devices and license plates by their nature render the provisions of this code inapplicable, all provisions of this code relating to license plates may apply to stickers, tabs, or devices."

According to the California court case that D.M.V. lost in 1940 (People v. Kirby (1940), 38 C.A.2d Supp. 768, 770), all license plates issued by D.M.V. shall comply with Vehicle Code section 4851, and by implication, all "tabs" issued under Vehicle Code section 4853 shall also comply with Vehicle Code section 4851.

Question 1: "How did D.M.V. come to issue said illegal license plates to my vehicle in the first instance?"

Question 2: "Why has D.M.V. neglected and failed to replace said illegal license plates with legal license plates in the period of at least 10 years?"

Question 3: "Why has D.M.V. continued to accept my money, tendered in good faith in a timely manner each year for "Registration Renewal", when D.M.V. cannot/will not issue legal license plates for this vehicle?"

Demand 1: Tell me how, when, and where I can obtain a Formal Administrative Hearing before a neutral and uninvolved forum (I suggest either the California Assembly or the county Grand Jury; what is your suggestion?) on the above questions and the questions below for the purpose of Remedying D.M.V.'s Default:

(a). "What license plates, if any, should D.M.V. issue to my vehicle?"

(b). "Is there any valid lawful reason , if plates are required, that D.M.V. could not issue Non-Passenger, Non-Commercial, Non-State-Exempt, Non-County-Exempt plates substantially in the form:

for this vehicle?"

(c). "Is there any valid lawful reason that D.M.V. should not return (refund, rebate, abate) to me all the monies I have tendered in good faith under the color of authority of D.M.V.'s position that, "Your vehicle must be licensed in California."?" 2. D.M.V. has neglected and failed to issue a list or classification of "vehicles required to be registered under this Code" since at least 1959.

I did some further research and, after a diligent search, I have been unable to find any definite list of "vehicles required to be registered" under the Vehicle Code anywhere in the California Vehicle Code or in the California Code of Regulations.

Question 4: "Where is the Official List or Classification which specifies "vehicles required to be registered under this Code"?"

Question 5: "Has this List or Classification ever been published as regulations of D.M.V., as required by the California Administrative Procedures Act?"

Question 6: "Has there ever been any official formal Determination by D.M.V. that my vehicle is in the Class "vehicle required to be registered"?"

Question 7: "When was said offical Determination made?"

Question 8: "Upon what Facts was said official Determination made?"

Question 9: "If there is no Official Determination, did D.M.V. just presume, for its own advantage and financial benefit and/or the benefit of unknown party/parties, that my vehicle was and is in the Class "vehicle required to be registered"?"

Demand 2: Tell me how, when, and where I can obtain a Formal Administrative Hearing from D.M.V. on the above questions and the questions below for the purpose of Remedying D.M.V.'s Default:
(a) "Does the Class "vehicle required to be registered under the Vehicle Code" legally exist in California?"

(b) "Is my vehicle one which lawfully falls into the Class "vehicle required to be registered" under the Vehicle Code?"

3. D.M.V. has neglected and failed to issue a Legal certificate of ownership to me since the date I purchased the vehicle.

According to Vehicle Code section 4450:

Califronia Vehicle Code (1999), section 4450:
"The department upon registering a vehicle shall issue a certificate of ownership to the legal owner and a registration card to the owner, or both to the owner if there is no legal owner of the vehicle."

D.M.V. is required to issue a "certificate of ownership" to the legal owner or owner of a vehicle.

D.M.V. has verbally told me several times through its purported employees that I am the legal owner of the vehicle identified as [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!]

D.M.V. has never issued said certificate of ownership to me; instead D.M.V. issued an Illegal "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" to me.

Question 10. "Why has D.M.V. neglected and failed to issue a legal certificate of ownership to me?"

Question 11. "To whom, if anyone, did D.M.V. issue the said certificate of ownership?"

Question 12. "Who does D.M.V. officially regard as the legal owner of the vehicle identified as [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!]"

Question 13. "Since they were supposedly Delivered to D.M.V. by the first "Registered Owner" when the said vehicle was first "Registered" in California, where are the Documents of Title (including and not limited to, the Manufacturer's Certificate/Statement of Origin, the Manufacturer's Invoice(s), the Bill(s) of Lading, the Customs Declaration(s), and the Bill(s) of Sale) for said vehicle?"

Question 14. "Has there ever been any official formal or informal Determination by D.M.V. as to who is the legal owner of the vehicle identified as [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!]?"

Question 15. "When was said official Determination made?"

Question 16. "Upon what Facts was said official Determination made?"

Question 17. "If there is no Official Determination, did D.M.V. just presume, for its own advantage and financial benefit and/or the benefit of unknown party/parties, that said party/parties was/were entitled to be recognized as the legal owner of the vehicle identified as [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!]?"

Demand 3: Tell me how, when, and where I can obtain a Formal Administrative Hearing from D.M.V. on the above questions and the questions below for the purpose of Remedying D.M.V.'s Default:

(a). "Who does D.M.V. recognize as the legal owner of the vehicle identified as [identified by Manufacturer's legal name and Manufacturer's chassis number, NOT by license plate number!]?"

(b). "How did said person become said legal owner?"

(c). "Why has D.M.V. neglected and failed to issue me a Legal "Certificate of Ownership" instead of an Illegal "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE"?"

(d). "Is there any valid lawful reason why D.M.V should not issue to me, as legal owner, a valid certificate of ownership for said vehicle?"

(e). "Is there any valid lawful reason why D.M.V. should not Deliver to me, as legal owner, said Documents of Title for said vehicle?"

4. In relation to the Driver's License "[XXXXXXX]" issued by D.M.V. in the name "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]" (a Legal Fiction as admitted by the Franchise Tax Board in 1998), it appears from my research that D.M.V. has unilaterally Determined that said "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]" (said legal fiction) is in either the Class "engaged in the occupation of Chauffeur" and/or the Class "corporation, etc. engaged in business upon the public highways".

Question 18. "Has there ever been any official Determination by D.M.V. that "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]" is in fact in the Class/Classes of a "person required to be licensed by D.M.V."?"

Question 19. "When was said official Determination made?"

Question 20. "Upon what Facts was said official Determination made?"

Question 21. "If there is no official Determination, did D.M.V. just presume, for its own advantage and financial benefit and/or the benefit of unknown party/parties, that "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]" was and is in a Class which is required to be licensed?"

Question 22. "Why is it that D.M.V. effectively refuses to recognize the Constitutionally-protected Class "people travelling in their own private pleasure cars upon the public highways for the purposes of business and pleasure"?"

Demand 4: Tell me how, when, and where I can obtain a Formal Administrative Hearing from D.M.V. on the above questions and the questions below:

(a). "What Benefit does D.M.V. derive or expect-to-derive from the presumed existence of the Legal Fiction entity "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]"

(b). "On what basis does D.M.V. presume that I or "[YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with a middle initial]" am/is in fact in the Class/Classes "occupied as a Chauffeur" and/or "engaged in business upon the public highways" rather than the Class "people travelling in their own private pleasure cars upon the public highways for business and pleasure"?"

(c). "Is there any valid lawful reason that I should not be officially recognized by D.M.V. as a Man travelling in his own private pleasure car upon the public highways for the purposes of business and pleasure?"

(d). "Is there any valid lawful reason that D.M.V. should not return (refund, rebate, abate) to me all monies I have tendered in good faith under the color of authority of D.M.V.'s statement (true, but un-Constitutional in application) that, "You must be licensed to drive in California."?"

5. I have more-than-reasonable cause to believe that D.M.V. is, in fact, a California corporation, has been so since at least 1963, and for some undisclosed reason wishes to conceal that status from the public.

From California Government Code (1999), Section 945:
"A public entity may sue and be sued. (Added by Stats. 1963, c. 1715, p. 3383, sec. 2.)"

"It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any traditional company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. ... The state of Georgia, by giving to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. ...
"The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter." The Bank of the United States v. The Planter's Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.

From the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code (1999), Section 54950):
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

From California Government Code (1999), Section 6250:
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state."

Question 23. "Is there some valid lawful reason why people dealing with D.M.V. should not know that D.M.V. is a corporation, whether public or private?"

Question 24. "What benefit does D.M.V. derive or expect-to-derive from denying said knowledge to its current and potential "customers" or "clients"?"

Question 25. "Where is the Charter, if any, of D.M.V. recorded?"

Question 26. "What persons, if any, are shareholders or stockholders in D.M.V.?"

Demand 5: Tell me how, when, and where I can obtain a Formal Administrative Hearing from D.M.V. on the above questions and the questions below for the purpose of Remedying D.M.V.'s Default:

(a) "Explain, in excruciating detail, why D.M.V. believes that it is reasonable that people dealing or attempting to deal with D.M.V. should not be truthfully informed as to D.M.V.'s status, when "doing business" with D.M.V. and before ever attempting to "do business" with D.M.V."

(b) "Is it D.M.V.'s policy that the officers and employees of D.M.V. should knowingly "do business" in the usual course of business with any entity which deliberately seeks or sought to conceal its true identity and/or status?"

(c) "Why does D.M.V. presume that it is reasonable for D.M.V. to engage in what are substantially "unfair business practices" conducted "under color of authority"?"

Notice: D.M.V., as a California Corporation, does not have the constitutional Right to Remain Silent.
D.M.V. has an affirmative duty under Government Code, section 6250 to disclose the requested information.

I specifically reserve all Rights and Remedies.

Failure to disclose will result in my exercise of all legal and lawful Remedies.

I Declare and Affirm, under the penalties provided for Perjury under the laws of the united states of America and of the state of California, that the foregoing is True, to the best of my knowledge, belief, and understanding at this time.

Verified by my hand, this Day, the ________________of____________ of the year of Our Lord, one thousand, nine hundred and ninty-nine, in ____________________________city, ____________________________county, _______________________state, united states of America.

Signature: _______________________________________