[PART 1][PART 2][PART 3][PART 4][PART 5]

Patriot Arguments on the Income Tax
And Other Assorted Theories

(Part III)

Devvy Kidd
November 16, 2002

Parts I and II are located at:

  • Part 1: Patriot Arguments on the Income Tax
  • Part 2: Patriot Arguments On The Income Tax



    Research provided by Larry Becraft, Attorney at Law.


         Several years ago, I encountered on the Net a man named David Gould who made the groundless assertion that the word "BAR" in reference to professional associations of lawyers meant "British Accreditation Regency". This nonsense appeared to be nothing more than disinformation promoted by wild-eyed gurus, typically associated with Wrong Way Law types who believed arguments like the missing 13th Amendment, names in CAPS, etc.

       Gould was reputed to be addicted to TV cartoon shows and he obtained his legal information only from the Net. During a trip to Phoenix in early 2000, I learned that Gould apparently acquired this idea about "BAR" from another man named Sean Rice, who at the time was leagued in some fashion with the Zidar group in Phoenix. Later information from those who knew Rice clearly indicated that Rice was at least a confidential informant ("CI") working with federal law enforcement.  The feds do have an interest in sowing garbage arguments in the freedom movement. The feds also love to have people act on their own without benefit of sound advice from legal counsel.

     But over time, more and more gurus have been making this unfounded claim. For example, one promoter's web site states:

         "The owners who control the American BAR Association are a private corporation whose headquarters are located in England. BAR stands for British Accredited Registry. Attorneys at law are given the title of 'Esquire' through the BAR, a title meaning  'Shield Bearer'; they carry this shield for the  'Crown of the City of London'. Attorney: one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land."

    There are probably 4 or 5 other promoters of this idea which lacks any factual basis.

      I suggest that the American Bar Association itself be consulted to determine whether the above contention is correct. At the ABA web site, this is found:

         "The ABA was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states."

       The original constitution for that organization, as amended, still governs it. Its headquarters are located at American Bar Association, 740 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-1019. It declares that "the ABA is a national, voluntary professional organization. We have no role in administering bar exams or licensing attorneys in the U.S."  It has no legal association with Britain or its Monarch. Only American lawyers and others having related occupations (like law librarians) can join (there is an international section of "associates"). Not every American lawyer is a member; I am not and I know many others who are not.

        "Further, a search on the Net regarding either the terms "British Accreditation Regency" or "British Accredited Registry" reveals that such an entity does not exist. If it exists, what is the address of BAR? If it exists at all, it is in the minds of the promoters of this nonsense.

        What about this supposed allegiance to the "Crown"? Alabama lawyers take, via Alabama Code §34-3-15, the following oath:

         "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself as an attorney, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity, as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice and that I will support the Constitution of the state of Alabama and of the United States, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, so help me God."

       Nothing in this oath mentions anything about having allegiance to British entities. Instead, when I was sworn, Imade an oath to support the US and Alabama Constitutions, not something British, either its people or the British "unwritten" constitution. See the oath for Mississippi lawyers, and Georgia's Rule 16, Rules for Governing Admission to the Practice of Law.

        The oath taken by Florida lawyers is as follows:

         "I do solemnly swear:

         "I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida;

         "I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

         "I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

         "I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

         "I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval;

         "I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

         "I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

        Rule 402, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, provides that lawyers are to take the following oath:

         "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:

         "I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge those duties and will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States;

         "I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

         "I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defenses except those I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime;

         "I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me only such means as are consistent with trust and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

         "I will respect the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval;

         "I will abstain from all offensive personalities, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

         "I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice;

          "So help me God."

        Oaths taken by attorneys in other States are similar. For example, the statutorily mandated oath in Oklahoma provides:

         "Upon being permitted to practice as attorneys and counselors at law, they shall, in open court, take the following oath: You do solemnly swear that you will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; that you will do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court, and if you know of any you will give knowledge thereof to the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; you will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney in this court according to your best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client, so help you God."  5 O.S. § 2 (OSCN 2001).

        The oath Tennessee lawyers take is somewhat shorter. Rule 6, Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, requires the following oath for attorneys:

         "I * [name] * do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and that I will truly and honestly demean myself in the practice of my profession to the best of my skill and abilities, so help me God."

    The oath Texas lawyers take is:

         "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of the law, and will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability. So help me God."

    Wyoming Code §33-5-112 provides:

         "No person shall be deemed admitted to the bar until he shall have taken an oath to the effect that he will support, obey, and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and honestly and to the best of his ability discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor-at-law."

    See also California Business and Professions Code §§6067-68, Indiana Code  §33-21-1-1, Idaho Code §3-201, Kentucky SCR §2.010, Montana Code §37-61-207, North Carolina Gen. Statutes §11-11, and Virginia Code § 54.1-3903.

    Precisely where does one find this supposed allegiance to the "Crown of the City of London"? If anything, attorneys have taken an oath and are "shield bearers" to not only their clients, but also for the U.S. and various State constitutions.

      A lawyer upon admission to a State bar association enters a regulated profession. To become a lawyer, one must today attend college and graduate, and then attend three years of law school. After graduation, the bar exam must be taken and passed. Then a lawyer is sworn and I doubt that any of the statutorily mandated oaths of any State of
    this nation is substantially different from the oath I took and the others noted above.

        The profession itself imposes certain duties upon lawyers, including ethical conduct. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are posted at the web site of the ABA. If you want to read the ethical rules for lawyers in all of the American States, this site at Cornell contains the links. This FindLaw link will also send you to these rules of

        What legal training do these gurus have? Are they under any legal obligation to provide sound legal advice? The absence of any such duty on their part leaves them free to promote whatever wacky ideas they want, dressed in the garb of a legal argument. This is why they promote arguments like the UCC, redemption, three judge courts, "we are Brits," and others noted on this web site. To dissuade you from seeking the advice of a competent lawyer regarding the validity of the arguments of gurus, they have invented this baseless "Bar" contention, which I trace back to Sean Rice. Federal and state law enforcement agencies surely desire to have people in the freedom movement following utterly groundless legal arguments: it makes their job easier.

        These same "Bar" contention gurus also try to make a case based upon the word, "attorn." Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "attorn" as follows: "To turn * * * In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate."

       History of feudal times provides the meaning of this term. After the Norman conquest in 1066, feudalism was completely established in England (this system had its origins in Medieval Europe). The nobility were the friends and court favorites of the monarch and consequently held estates beneath the King, who owned all the land.

       Possession of the land was similarly held at will by other parties below the nobles. But nobody "owned" (in the modern sense of ownership) the land; it was owned by the King. These "at will" estates allowed an occupant to possess the land so long as duties of "homage and service" to the superior were met. See the Calverts of Maryland. The most common duties included making payments of rents and crops, providing soldiers for defense and for war, etc. Some of these duties were discharged by new brides: their wedding nights were spent not with their new husbands, but with the landlord ("first night"). But the most important duty was that of allegiance of the tenant to his landlord. These duties were often oppressive, leading to controversies and revolts.

        If a tenant desired to vacate his estate and transfer it to another, the superior landlord had to approve. Obviously if the estate in question was that of a mere villein, the landlord most likely would only want a hard worker in his place. But for larger estates, there were obviously different considerations for landlords. If some duke who was the immediate tenant of the King wanted to leave England to marry and live in France, the King would only approve someone whom he knew was absolutely faithful to him.

       Thus, changes in estates from one tenant to another were complicated procedures. And a change of the estate of a duke, for example, required those who were his tenants to pay the same "homage and services" to the new landlord. But it seems fair to say that most changes in estates, "attorning," were accomplished by the parties themselves without the assistance of any other person. If another party did assist this procedure in some way, that party was obviously someone who was well connected and politically astute. It did not require, however, somebody like a lawyer.

        But in a sense, "feudalism" itself was "attorned" and the lawyers did it. Over a period of several hundred years, the old common lawyers methodically kept arguing and getting judicial approval for recognition of ownership rights in land. Slowly and surely, the courts began to recognize that tenants had certain rights to the land they possessed and eventually, the tenants became owners. Over time, the Monarchs lost title of the land to the tenants. While at the height of feudalism in England, a king could go anywhere he wanted and could even force villeins to build bridges for him over creeks, eventually the king not only lost title to the land, but it became recognized that a mere villein was "king of his own castle" and the king could not even enter his humble abode. This "alienation of the estate" away from the King to the tenants was the accomplishment of the old common lawyers and judges.

        I wish that the "attorn" advocates would get the story straight. Perhaps they would learn something by watching some movies about feudal England, like "Braveheart." They don't because they fail to read and study (or watch movies); they are prone to just follow rumor and hearsay rather than making the effort to confirm the accuracy of an historical fact or law. This explains why they build and sell arguments based upon statutes that no longer exist.

       To confirm that which I stated above regarding lawyers "attorning the king,"  may I suggest Bergin & Haskell's Estates in Land and Future Interests, which explains this evolution of estates from ownership of the king to the tenants. Of course, there are other similar works in law libraries, but I doubt that any of these "Bar" advocates can find their way there. But if they did, they would be lost once inside.

         Those who advocate this "BAR" argument are using lies to sell garbage legal arguments like names in CAPS, missing 13th Amendment, redemption, etc. If you buy into their position, expect to be sold some trashy legal argument without substance ("make yourself an alien"). These gurus do not want you to ask a lawyer whether the legal arguments they promote have any validity. Buyer beware.

        As to the merits of the argument about citizenship which TBA promotes, these cases must be addressed:

    1. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F.Supp. 126, 129 (M.D.La. 1984)("Petitioner's shield of the 'Common Law' as an 'Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic,' provides him with precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary [sic] -- ZERO")

    2. United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir. 1991)("The Krugers' principle argument below and on appeal is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution unlawfully purported to bestow citizenship upon non-white races and other 'artificial statutory persons.' This argument is absurd").

    Recent Note

    I e-mailed the following request to one of the advocates of this argument:

    Subject:  The BAR
    Date:  Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:34:18 -0600
    From:  Larry Becraft
    To:  gd@tbafoundation.com

    At your web site, the following assertions are posted:

              The system at hand, controlled by an esoteric organization known as the Bar Association (a product of international bankers),

              The owners who control the American BAR Association are a private corporation whose headquarters are located in England. BAR stands for British Accredited Registry. Attorneys at law are given the title of "Esquire" through the BAR, a title meaning "Shield Bearer"; they carry this shield for the "Crown of the City of London". Attorney: one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

         I am interested in contacting this esoteric organization, the British Accredited Registry, to verify the above facts. Can you please provide to me its address and phone number?

    Larry Becraft

    This is the recent reply I received:

    Subject: RE: The BAR
    Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:37:28 -0500
    From: "GD Holmes" <gdholmes@tbafoundation.com>
    Organization: Taking Back America
    To: "'Larry Becraft'"


    Yours in Truth and Freedom,

    National MarketingDirector
    GD Holmes [GDHolmes@TBAFoundation.com]
    Taking Back America [http://www.TBAFoundation.com]
    PH: 407-292-7249
    FAX: 407-292-7899

        The above link appears to be the "proof" that BAR means British Accredited Registry. However, this link is an old one which merely publicizes a meeting of ABA members who are death penalty opponents. That particular section of the ABA held a meeting in London with other death penalty opponents from other countries back on July 18, 2000. Therefore, merely holding a meeting in another country with other lawyers having an interest in an issue of this type is "proof" to these advocates regarding the BAR contention!!

        Clearly, this was merely a meeting set up for the convenience of the attendees, American and foreigners. Such meetings are frequently held so that attendees can combine both vacation and work together. Wives do not attends such meetings; they take tours of the cities where these events are held. After such events, social programs are often held. Not only do lawyers have meetings in interesting places, so do other professions.

        Using this rational, when the family law section of the Alabama Bar meets in Pensacola during the summer for both vacation and work, it must be a part of the Florida Bar. When the corporate section of the Alabama Bar decides to hold meetings in Vale, CO, they must really be Colorado lawyers.

        Will someone please provide to me the address of BAR? Apparently, those who make this argument cannot find this group (outside their own heads).

    Here is a recent e-mail from a TBA client:

    Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:57:26 -0800
    From: "Dennis MacPhaeddon" <denward1@mindspring.com>
    To:  "Marty Cooper" <marty@tbafoundation.com>
    References:  1

    To Marty and Austin Gary Copper,

    I can not believe your arrogance. I got documents from your organization (TBA) with the WRONG NAME on them and pages of other mistakes which I faxed back, (AT YOUR AND GARY'S REQUEST) to your office TWICE to get them corrected which you never did. This has gone on for six months. I PAID YOU TO HAVE A COMPLETE SET OF DOCUMENTS WITH MY NAME ON THEM, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S. YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY. This is fraud ! ! You are the cowards by not following through with what you promised plain and simple. NO EXCUSES !!

    I will take the whole package down to show Bob Kelly at the Americans Bulletin along with State and Federal authorities in Oregon.  You did not perform AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD.

    Gary if you can not keep your word and perform as you said YOU WOULD TO ME  ON THE PHONE then cease and desist promoting TBA. How many other people have you screwed? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ! !






    Dennis Ward

    To everyone on my list.

        The above correspondence is to Marty and Austin Gary Cooper at the TBA Foundation who has gone around the country promoting Expatriation/Repatriation as a way to get out of the system and assert your sovereignty by repatriating to the REPUBLIC.  It is promoted by Austin Gary Cooper out of Florida.  They supposedly do all of the paperwork FOR YOU, send it to you to sign and then you send out to all of the usual suspects. The problem is they did not get it right and sent my packet of documents with the WRONG NAME on some of the documents.

        I immediately tried to get new documents and faxed the incorrect ones back so they could see what they did wrong. I can provide anyone with copies of what they sent and the type of lousy work they do. I HAVE HEARD OF OTHERS HAVING THE SAME TYPES OF PROBLEMS WITH LACK OF FOLLOW THROUGH, INTEGRITY AND SUPPORT. IN ESSENCE THEY PROMISE AND DO NOT DELIVER.

        I and a FRIEND WENT TO HEAR Austin Gary Cooper in Medford, Oregon last summer and signed up on the basis of his presentation.

        This lack of follow through was the last straw. I have been screwed over for the last time by these so called "Christian Patriots". This is totally unacceptable. If you want more info I will by happy to send you copies of the documentation to prove what I say.  Please forward this to everyone on your list so that others will not be ripped off by TBA. Spread the word. Thank you for taking the time to read this. We have to clean up our own house before we can clean out the rest of the vermin.


    * * *

    TBA's Revised Arguments

        Apparently in response to the above, TBA has dropped its groundless allegations regarding the ABA and BAR, apparently conceding that such an argument is baseless. Now, however, it has adopted a "new" contention. This argument was "developed" by Larry Wilkins of Florida, a/k/a "Anthony Wayne" who has in the past had a web
    site at "IResist" but which is now no longer hosted there. Instead of actually doing some real research, TBA has taken the full argument concocted by Wilkins. But likewise, this "new" argument is just simply crazy.

        This new argument places great emphasis upon events of the Revolutionary War and it contends that the United States of America is really, even today, nothing but "States of the British Crown", a condition resulting from some shenanigans of "The Crown Temple" during that era. Wilkins should get a job as a science fiction writer. TBA get an "F" in history.

        This new argument contains the following point:

         So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,

         It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit...

         That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton's U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.

         An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.

       I am very familiar with this argument; it was "developed" by parties other than Wilkins, who simply copied it from those who first started this fantasy.

        These people contend that during the Revolutionary War, we really were not at war with the King of England and proof of this consists of a loan the King made to the United States on July 16, 1782. Liars like these expect that people will never engage in any research to determine the truth of the matter. In this instance, Wilkins and TBA both propound false ideas; the United States did not borrow money from the English or King George but instead from the King of France.

        First, it should be noted that the United States made treaties with the French early during the Revolutionary War. For example, on February 6, 1778 we entered into two treaties with France; see 8 Stat. 6 thru page 30. If you have never read treaties in the U.S. Statutes at Large, you need a pointer before you start. Frequently, treaties language of the other nation. When you click onto the above link, you will find alternating pages of these treaties in English and also French. This historical document alone seems to abundantly prove that we were in fact at war with Britain and the French were our allies.

        Was this loan received by the United States on July 16, 1782 one we received from the King of England? Let's examine the loan agreement itself; see 8 Stat. 614. The name "most Christian Majesty" designates the King of France. I don't know who the "count Gravier de Vergennes" is, but quite obviously he was French. The document was signed at Versailles, and the loan was made in French funds, to be repaid in Paris.

       The loan agreement mentions the treaty with France dated February 6, 1778. London and Paris are in two different countries. Thos who claim that this loan was obtained from the King of England are either stupid, or they are liars who depend upon gullible people.

        The "new" TBA argument also contends that the United States of America are really "Crown Templar possessions" or "Crown Temple States". It is simply hard to believe that this debunked "We Are Brits" argument still is being promoted. If you read my "We Ain't Brits" article, you can see that both American and English courts rejected long ago that we are Brits and that the Brits or their monarch have any claim to any part of our country or government. These contentions are not just "against the grain," they are against reality and historical fact.

        There is no need to address further aspects of this incredibly stupid argument other than a few. TBA contends that the International Bar Association (which incidentally was created after WWII) is "physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London" and within the confines of the Inns. The truth is that the IBA has the address of 271 Regent Street, London.

       If you pull up the links below for the Inns of Court, a map of the area of the Inns is also posted. You can't find Regent Street on those maps. Obviously, the IBA is not physically located at or near the Inns. But I also wonder: how can local state bar associations created in the last hundred years be mere franchises of the IBA, which was not created until after WWII?

        TBA wastes lots of its breath asserting that four old English law schools are at the heart of some world conspiracy. Why don't you examine these for yourself:

    Inns of Court
    The Four Inns
    The Lincoln Inn
    The Gray's Inn
    The Middle Temple
    The Inner Temple

       These old law schools have tradition and lots of history. They were bombed by the Germans during the London bombings of WWII. Now I have a flash of insight: WWII was really a battle of the law schools!!!

        In conclusion, TBA's "new argument" makes wonderful science fiction, like much being promoted by the gurus in the freedom movement: birth certificates, names in CAPS, etc. No wonder this movement has such a bad name and is believed by many Americans to be composed of idiots. The proof is everywhere.

     * * *

    The "Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin" Argument

         During December, 1999, I received some angry e-mail from a female in Colorado who made the argument that those "vile lawyers" had devised a way to steal the title of cars "away from the people" via the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin ("MCO").  According to her, the MCO had been developed as the way to stealthily obtain ownership of all cars in America by the "State," and this scheme was clear proof of some communist plot. Here is a part of her argument:

         "Next, the deceitful lawyers dba 'the State' coerce these 'dealers'  into stealing the real bill of sale, called the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin and unlawfully converting it into a 'Title', which does not convey lawful ownership of the private car. It's just another little fraud/crime they pull.

         "Now, lying lawyers, dba 'The State' claim 'ownership' of your car, which is why your 'tags' state, 'for official use only'. That way the lying lawyers, dba 'the State', can now regulate, fine (for their own personal gain) and take 'their car' whenever they want.

         "Don't just take my words for it, do your own homework. I did! When we made the final payment on our little Chevy, I called the 'GM loan company' and demanded my Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin. They said, 'Oh, we give you the 'title'. I said, I don't want any stupid 'title', I want the true and lawful 'Bill of Sale'. They referred me to the 'dealer'. I called the 'dealer' and demanded my true and lawful 'Bill of Sale'. I got the same response. I demanded by [sic] MCO and finally the manager of the company admitted to me that 'the State' makes them turn them over when the cars come in.

         "I said, 'Madam, don't you know that is grand theft and unlawful conversion?' Her reply was, 'What is scary is that now, the 'federal government' wants them. And you don't think you live in a Communist Gov't and the lying lawyer club is the primary perverters of this country into communism?"

       According to this woman, when she bought her Chevy, she did not receive the "real" title to her car, which is the MCO. She contends that the MCO constitutes the title to her car and that her car is really owned by the State. This is a wild and groundless theory which many believe simply because they refuse to perform any research.

         "A manufacturer's certificate of origin is "a specified document certifying the country of origin of the merchandise required by certain foreign countries for tariff purposes, it sometimes requires the signature of the consul of the country to which it is destined." Our country ships lots of its products internationally and so does the rest of the world. This document was just simply created by international convention, primarily for tax purposes. As you can see, it is not the title of any object, not even for cars.

      Federal regulations deal with this matter. For example, in 19 CFR  §181.11, entitled "Certificate of Origin," the following is found:

         (a) General. A Certificate of Origin shall be employed to certify that a good being exported either from the United States into Canada or Mexico or from Canada or Mexico into the United States qualifies as an originating good for purposes of preferential tariff treatment under the NAFTA.

         (b) Preparation of Certificate in the United States. An exporter in the United States who completes and signs a Certificate of Origin for the purpose set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall use Customs Form 434 or such other medium or format as approved by the Canadian or Mexican customs administration for that purpose. Where the U.S. exporter is not the producer of the good, that exporter may complete and sign a Certificate on the basis of: (1) Its knowledge of whether the good qualifies as an originating good; (2) Its reasonable reliance on the producer's written representation that the goodqualifies as an originating good; or (3) A completed and signed Certificate for the good voluntarily provided to the exporter by the producer.

         (c) Submission of Certificate to Customs. An exporter in the United States, and a producer in the United States who has voluntarily provided a copy of a Certificate of Origin to that exporter pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall provide a copy of the Certificate to Customs upon request.

         (d) Notification of errors in Certificate. An exporter or producer in the United States who has completed and signed a Certificate of Origin, and who has reason to believe that the Certificate contains information that is not correct, shall within 30 calendar days after the date of discovery of the error notify in writing all persons to whom the Certificate was given by the exporter or producer of any change that could affect the accuracy or validity of the Certificate.

         Cars are big exports for this country and the manufacturers deal with certificates of origin every day. In fact, NAFTA has provisions regarding such certificates at Art. 501, which may be viewed here.

         Because car manufacturers provide such certificates for international trade, the States also demand them. In Colorado, the following statute makes a clear distinction between car titles and MCOs:

        CRS §42-6-113 - New vehicles - bill of sale - certificate of title.

         Upon the sale or transfer by a dealer of a new motor vehicle, such dealer shall, upon the delivery thereof, make, execute, and deliver unto the purchaser or transferee a good and sufficient bill of sale therefor, together with the manufacturer's certificate of origin. Said bill of sale shall be affirmed by a statement signed by such dealer, shall contain or be accompanied by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury in the second degree, as defined in section 18-8-503, C.R.S., shall be in such form as the director may prescribe, and shall contain, in addition to other  information which the director may by rule or regulation from time to time require, the make and model of the motor vehicle so sold or transferred, the identification number placed upon the vehicle by the manufacturer for identification purposes, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, and the date of the sale or transfer thereof, together with a description of any mortgage thereon given to secure the purchase price or any part thereof.

       Upon presentation of such a bill of sale to the director or one of the director's authorized agents, a new certificate of title for the vehicle therein described shall be issued and disposition thereof made as in other cases. The transfer of a motor vehicle which has been  used by a dealer for the purpose of demonstration to prospective customers, if such motor vehicle is a new vehicle as defined in section 42-6-102 (8), shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this section.

       Thus under Colorado law, it is plain that a manufacturer's certificate of origin is different from the title to a car as well as a bill of sale for the same.

         The MCO argument is another crazy idea promoted by people who refuse to perform any research. When a car manufacturer builds a car, that company owns it and has title to it. "Title" to personal property like a car is not some document; it is that invisible "bundle of rights" which one has when he owns something. That "bundle of rights" excludes all other parties from possession of the property in question. When a car is purchased, the buyer delivers money to the seller and acquires title to the car, and that title means that he can exclude all other persons from possession of that car.

       A "bill of sale" is nothing but a document which evidences the fact that title has passed from one party to another. This "bundle of rights" can be divided, and this happens when a car is purchased via financing provided by a bank or other financial institution. When this happens, the bank has an interest in the car and that interest is protected via contractual provisions as well as a financing statement (UCC Form 1) which is filed at a designated State office to show to the rest of the world that the bank has an interest as a secured party in that vehicle. If the loan is paid, the bank's interest is extinguished; if not, it can claim possession of the car.

         Certificates of title are nothing but the State's "answer" to the problem of car theft. "Certificate" means according to Black's law dictionary "a written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality complied with." States have enacted laws to provide for "certificates of title" for cars which are issued and given to car owners; they are nothing more than further evidence of ownership of a car and this helps reduce the incidence of car theft; but such a certificate is not "title" to a car. And neither is the MCO.

         Lots of flaky arguments float around this country, and the MCO argument is just simply another one promoted by people who do not know what they are talking about.

    Additional Note: The above Colorado woman continues to promote "off-the-wall" legal arguments. She recently stated as follows:

         "People need to start asking questions about how AGs can bring suits in the first place!!!  First of all, when did we the people ask for 'attorney generals'? * * * How can an 'AG' bring a suit when they are not the damaged party and they do not have a written contract to 'represent' any of the people in the state?  See how these unAmerican attorn-eys trick you?

                         a.  When was that 'AG' sworn in as a 'general'?
                         b.  In what 'branch of service'?
                         c.  And what country do they serve?

         "They certainly are not upholding our liberties or the law which is the Constitutions. Nowhere in the constitutions do I see that 'the state' should have an AG!!!  It is just another bureaucracy * * *

       Quite obviously, this woman knows nothing about Attorneys General. The reason that she is mad at a couple of AGs is because she was working for a company promoting a pyramid scheme which the Kansas AG shut down. In any event, in response to her blather that "Nowhere in the constitutions do I see that 'the state' should have an AG," I simply went over to the Kansas and Colorado constitutions posted at several web sites and forwarded to her the constitutional provisions which created the offices of Attorney General in these States. This woman likes to argue law, but whenever she does, she inevitably errs.

    Coming in Part IV:

    Executive Order No. 11110

    The "law" is not copyrighted