My Third Letter to the California DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755 U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, United States of America
No telephone service maintained.
April 13, 2000

To: OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (a California Corporation)
2415 1st Ave. MS-F101
Sacramento, CA 95818

Dear Director:

Declarant, ___________________________________________ a natural-born white Man, one of the People of the United States of America, and currently one of the People of the State of California; with all due Respect and in full Good Faith, does Declare and Affirm that:

This letter is a timely and sufficient response to a letter on stationary purporting to be that of THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, dated March 24, 2000, contained within an envelope purporting to be that of THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES postmarked "Mar 28'00", and delivered on March 29, 2000, from one "B.B. JONES" purporting, this time, to be acting for Ms. Contreras-Sweet, SECRETARY of the BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AGENCY.
Since "B.B. JONES" has in the past purported to be your employee, please explain to me how he has any knowledge of my letter to Ms. Contreras-Sweet or has any authority to answer it.
Do you know who this "B.B. JONES" really works for? Do you know if this "B.B. JONES" evens exists? Please tell me.
I am still waiting for a valid response from Ms. Contreras-Sweet; it has been over six months now.

"B.B. JONES" 's statement that: "Ms. Contreras-Sweet, Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, has asked me to respond to your correspondence of October 19, 1999, regarding your Administrative Notice of Personnel Complaint, Administrative Notice of Cancellation and Administrative Notice of Demand.", is negated by the Fact that the copy delivered to me has a photocopied signature and arrived with a "Post-it"/equivalent, pale-yellow in color and measuring 2" wide by 1 1/2" tall, upon which is handwritten (not in my handwriting) in red ink: "Blind copy to Ms. Contreras-Sweet", affixed on the upper left quadrant of page 1.
From this time I am entitled to the Presumption that I am not dealing with an honest employee of The D.M.V. or of The State of California, but with a disingenuous interloper.
I must Presume that all other statements in his letter are equally false; so I Deny all statements made by this "B.B.JONES".

Consequently, under the provisions of the California Information Practices Act (THE CIVIL CODE (2000), sections 1798, et seq.), I must require disclosure of the record(s) described below which is(are), or should be, maintained within, or under the control of, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
Please Forward this letter to the appropriate Disclosure Officer in your office for immediate action.
According to Information Practices Act (The Civil Code, sections 1798, et seq.), you are allowed a maximum of fifteen (15) calendar days to complete this task.

(1) A True copy of the original Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate of Origin for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(2) A True copy of the original Invoice for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(3) A True copy of the original Customs Declaration for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(4) A True copy of the original Receipt for Duties Paid for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(5) A True copy of the original Customs Clearance for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(6) A True copy of the original Warehouse Receipt(s) for my vehicle, supposedly "surrendered" to the DMV in or about 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(7) A true copy of each and every Bill of Sale for my vehicle whether surrendered-to or received-be the DMV since 1981 and supposedly held in a fiduciary relationship by the DMV.
(8) A True copy of any Document(s) indicating that this "B.B.JONES" is a bona fide employee/officer of the DMV.
(9) A True copy of each and every statute, code, regulation, or rule which the DMV relies upon for the authority to regulate the activities of people engaged in NON-COMMERCIAL motoring upon the highways of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(10) A True copy of the Charter of THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

In the event that any required Document(s) does not exist in the records of the DMV, I require an Official Admission of that Fact for each such Document(s).
If the DMV cannot/will not deliver the Document(s) referred to above in a timely manner, I am entitled to the Presumption that the DMV does not possess said Document(s).
I will then Require that you go out on the open market and find each and every Document(s) you cannot account for.

I make a firm promise to pay the reasonable costs, not to exceed the cost of ten cents ($0.10) per page unless actually raised by a valid statute, and not to exceed the cumulative sum of twenty dollars ($20), of duplicating the above-mentioned document(s).
I temporarily waive, but ultimately Reserve, the Right to the physical inspection of these records at your business address and require that you deliver said copies by mail to the mailing location properly indicated above.
If you anticipate exceeding the limit of $20.00, please send that portion which you have developed and I will consider obtaining the balance of the materials later.
If any portion of this requirement is, or is claimed to be, exempt from disclosure, please deliver those nonexempt portions which are reasonably segregatable.

I Declare that I have a lawful and legitimate interest in the records referenced above and that this is my signature subscribed below.

It now becomes necessary to remind the DIRECTOR of THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, and through him, "B.B. JONES" and each and every other employee/officer of the DMV of certain applicable laws of the State of California and of the United States:

A.1. The California Legislature has declared that the People of the State of California are sovereign:

THE GOVERNMENT CODE (1999), § 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."(emphasis added).

"It is a well-recognized rule that for purposes of statutory construction the codes are to be regarded as blending into each other and constituting but a single statute. (Proctor v. Justice's Court (1940), 209 Cal. 39, 43 [285 P. 213]; County of Butte v. Merrill (1903), 141 Cal. 396, 399 [74 P. 1036]; Clarke v. Mead (1894), 102 Cal. 516, 520 [39 P. 862].)" In re Porterfield (1946), 28 Cal.2d 91, 168 P.2d 706.

"§ 96.5. Perversion or obstruction of justice by judicial officer, court commissioner or referee.
(a) Every judicial officer, court commissioner, or referee who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits prosecution under paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 182 of the Penal Code or any other law." (Amended by Stats. 1999, c. 853 (S.B. 832, sec. 7.) effective January 1, 2000.)

C.1. TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE (1999), § 1341 provides for penalties for the crime of mail fraud.

C.2. TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE (1999), § 1346 reads:

For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

The Constitution constrains governmental action "by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken." Ex parte Virginia, 100 US 339, 346-347, 25 L Ed 676 (1880). And under whatever congressional label. ...
It surely cannot be that government, state or federal, is able to evade the most solemn obligations imposed in the constitution by simply resorting to the corporate form. (emphasis added) Lebron v. National R. Passenger Corp. (1995), 130 L.Ed.2d 902, 914-923.

The state does not, by becoming a corporator, identify itself with the corporation. The Planters' Bank of Georgia is not the state of Georgia, although the state holds an interest in it.
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction 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. (emphasis added). The Bank of the United States v. the Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907, 6 L.Ed 244.

Statement of Policy

My personal policy is to interact with others as openly and honestly as possible. It makes my life much simpler when I simply tell the truth.
I do NOT intend any unlawful or illegal harm or injury to the State of California, D.C.H.P. (a California Corporation), your particular office of D.C.H.P., and/or any member/employee thereof. At the same time I do not, cannot, and will not, excuse, condone, or tolerate any unlawful, illegal, or extra-legal interference with myself, my property, or my affairs by the State of California, D.C.H.P. (a California Corporation), and/or its employees.
. . .
[I do not need to remind you that should you or any of your fellow employees or any affiliated agencies view this complaint as a "threat to their authority" or a reason/excuse for a vendetta or harrassment (sic) aimed at me and/or my property, that such behavior would be not only totally unacceptable, but criminal as well.]
I specifically reserve all lawful and legal Rights and Remedies.

When the territory now comprised in the State of California was under Mexican dominion, its judicial system was that of the Roman law, modified by Spanish and Mexican legislation. Upon the formation of the present State government, that system was ordained by a constitutional provision to be continued, until it should be changed by the Legislature. At the first session of the Legislature an act was passed, adopting the common law of England; and on the 22d of April, 1850, another act was passed, repealing all the laws previously in force, but providing, "that no right acquired, contracts made, or suits pending, shall be affected thereby." Fowler v. Smith (1852), 2 Cal. 568, 569.

The common law was adopted in this state at the meeting of its first legislature. Prior to that time the Constitution of 1849 had been adopted, which provided that, "No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or other infamous crime ... unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury." The grand jury system is a product of the common law. The civil law [nt: of Mexico] made no provision for a body like the grand jury in its system of jurisprudence. The members of the first constitutional convention in providing for a grand jury must have had in mind the grand jury as known to the common law. This the respondents [nt: the Superior Court] admit, but further contend that the constitutional convention of 1879 adopted an entirely different system than the common law system provided for in the Constitution of 1849. We find nothing to justify this conclusion either in the Constitution or in the debate of the constitutional convention of 1879. Fitts v. Superior Court (1936), 6 Cal.2d 230, 240-241.

I Declare and Affirm, under the penalties provided for Perjury under the Law of the State of California, that the foregoing is True and Accurate, 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, two thousand, in ____________________________city, ____________________________county, _______________________state, United States of America.

Signature: _______________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III