LOCKED - Since I can not read, perhaps you can help me

[Dr. Caligari]

Are you claiming that a certificate of title IS the title?

Because according to the states own definition it is NOT the title, just a record of evidence.

Where is my paper title?

Not my paper cert of title, but my title?

You start out being right-- a "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that says who has title (ownership) of the car. "Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

So the second half of your comment is meaningless-- there is no such thing as a "paper title." If you own the car, you have "title." The so-called "paper title" -- more properly called the "Certificate of Title"--is a piece of paper which recites who has title. Having that piece of paper handy, or having it on file with a public agency where it can be retrieved, is helpful if your "title" (ownership) is ever questioned, but the piece of paper is not the "title." (Or, as I once heard someone say, "the map is not the terrain.")

[The Observer]

"Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

This is similar to the tax protesters who believe that, because the government has not recorded a notice of federal tax lien or that the notice has some defect in it, their wages cannot be levied. Imagine their surprise when such a levy happens. Imagine their shock and dismay when they lose in court trying to litigate over this issue. Imagine they simply don't understand the meaning of the words "intangible" or "abstract" and the legal significance.

[Dr. Caligari]

"Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

This is similar to the tax protesters who believe that, because the government has not recorded a notice of federal tax lien or that the notice has some defect in it, their wages cannot be levied. Imagine their surprise when such a levy happens. Imagine their shock and dismay when they lose in court trying to litigate over this issue. Imagine they simply don't understand the meaning of the words "intangible" or "abstract" and the legal significance.

The tax protester version of this argument is to claim that "the IRS has no lien on my property because all they filed is a 'Notice of Lien,' and they refuse to show me the actual 'lien'." (Or, "the IRS wrongfully seized my bank account, because they served the bank with a 'notice of levy,' not an actual 'levy'.") A "lien" is an intangible thing-- an encumbrance on the owner's title by the lienholder-- not a piece of paper; and a "levy" is an action--a seizure of property-- not a piece of paper.

[AndyK]

(1) The title of the thead is incorrect. It should read Since I refuse to think, I'm beyond help

(2) This thread began nowhere and is rapidly going further into Erewhon. It warrants immediate shut-down since it is totally irrational, not pursuing any intelligible controversy, and is rife with inappropriate language on the part of the original poster. Absent override by senior menbers, the 24-hour clock is ticking.

[arayder]

Could it be that our new friend has not discovered a vagary of law as a part of his ceaseless efforts to crack of code of law used to enslave us?

Could it be that we really do own our cars and houses (after the bank is paid off, of course)?

[Famspear]

PD wrote:

So they did not put it in the definition eh? Please retread [sic] it...

Actually, for once you're correct. The terms legal and equitable title are indeed found in some of the material. I was looking at the wrong post, and I stand corrected on that.

That's the first mistake I've made in Quatloos in many months, so you should really get excited.



As others here have pointed out, "title" (in the narrow legal sense of ownership) is not something physical. It's not a piece of paper. You cannot hold in your hand.

In this narrow sense, a "contract" is not a piece of paper.

In this narrow legal sense, "property" is not the land, or the car, or the boat, etc. Indeed, in this narrow sense, the actual physical object is known not as the "property" but instead by the Latin legal term, the res, which means the "thing" -- that is, the thing itself.

However, all these terms are ALSO used by lawyers (and other people) in a different way: to mean the piece of paper called the title certificate (in the case of "title"), or the document that you signed when you bought a product (in the case of "contract") or the land or car or boat (in the case of "property").

The term "legal title" (in the ownership sense, not in the "piece of paper" sense) roughly means the sum of the attributes of ownership relating to possession and control. The term "equitable title" (or "beneficial title") roughly means the sum of the attributes of ownership relating to use and benefit. In a trust arrangement, for example, a person (called a trustee) holds "legal title" (the power to control the property) for the benefit of another person (called a beneficiary) who holds "equitable title" which is generally the right to receive a benefit from the property. In a trust, there is something called a title split. That is, in some way there is a separation between at least some of the control over the property (legal title) and some of the right to receive the benefits from the property (the equitable title). Generally, to have a valid trust, no one person can hold both 100% of the legal title and 100% of the equitable title at the same time.

All this usually has nothing to do with "title" to (in the sense of ownership of) a motor vehicle. In most cases, the person owning the vehicle owns it "outright" -- meaning that he holds 100% of legal title and 100% of equitable title. An exception would be where the vehicle is held in trust.

Again, this is not rocket science. Most people -- including most non-lawyers -- are able to handle the fact that both legal terms and other terms in English have more than one meaning. And most people are able to keep the different meanings straight without the help that you apparently feel you need.

Example: Pull out a good collegiate English dictionary and look up the word "run". Your silly posts here are the equivalent of trying to convince us that someone is being "vague" if he says he is going to "run" a computer program, because for you the term "run" means using one's legs to propel oneself down the street.

How old are you, anyway? Are you in grade school? Do you act this way in grade school? Are you the one playing dumb with the teacher - pretending not to understand the material? Do you act this way with your mother? Does she put up with this?

[Famspear]

Arayder wrote:

PD, you would be the only person in my 60 odd years of life I have known who has undergone multiple I.Q. tests to find out how smart he is.

I think the problem was that the experts had to run the IQ test several times on PD before they were able to detect that he had an IQ.

[JamesVincent]

(1) The title of the thead is incorrect. It should read Since I refuse to think, I'm beyond help

(2) This thread began nowhere and is rapidly going further into Erewhon. It warrants immediate shut-down since it is totally irrational, not pursuing any intelligible controversy, and is rife with inappropriate language on the part of the original poster. Absent override by senior menbers, the 24-hour clock is ticking.

Actually, I think the title of this thread is dead on since he finally admits that he can't read. However, I don't think we need to wait the 24 hours since we have already rode in this rodeo here: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10188 making this a redundant thread. Besides which, it obviously is not going to answer any intelligent questions.... since there are none.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Are you claiming that a certificate of title IS the title?

Because according to the states own definition it is NOT the title, just a record of evidence.

Where is my paper title?

Not my paper cert of title, but my title?

You start out being right-- a "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that says who has title (ownership) of the car. "Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

So the second half of your comment is meaningless-- there is no such thing as a "paper title." If you own the car, you have "title." The so-called "paper title" -- more properly called the "Certificate of Title"--is a piece of paper which recites who has title. Having that piece of paper handy, or having it on file with a public agency where it can be retrieved, is helpful if your "title" (ownership) is ever questioned, but the piece of paper is not the "title." (Or, as I once heard someone say, "the map is not the terrain.")

Great, now we are getting somewhere.

Since title is intangible, why apply for a cert of title when the mso and bill of sale work just as well?

[arayder]

Arayder wrote:

PD, you would be the only person in my 60 odd years of life I have known who has undergone multiple I.Q. tests to find out how smart he is.

I think the problem was that the experts had to run the IQ test several times on PD before they were able to detect that he had an IQ.

I am reminded of the time Robert Menard told everybody over at the Randi Forum that he couldn't possibly have a narcissistic personality disorder because he had been tested for the disorder and was found not to have one.

It was pointed out to ole Bobby that there is no "test" for narcissistic personality disorders.

I can't imagine a psychologist wasting his/her time giving an I.Q. test to a person who had one just a few years before. There are testing protocols that restrict people from taking the same I.Q. test too many times so as to get familiar with the test items.

But I suppose PD could have waited long enough or shopped around for a trained tester who won't have known he had already taken the test.

But that doesn't make sense either. Who pays for multiple I.Q. tests, especially if as PD implies he knocked the top off the test the first time?

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD wrote:

So they did not put it in the definition eh? Please retread [sic] it...

Actually, for once you're correct. The terms legal and equitable title are indeed found in some of the material. I was looking at the wrong post, and I stand corrected on that.

That's the first mistake I've made in Quatloos in many months, so you should really get excited.



As others here have pointed out, "title" (in the narrow legal sense of ownership) is not something physical. It's not a piece of paper. You cannot hold in your hand.

In this narrow sense, a "contract" is not a piece of paper.

In this narrow legal sense, "property" is not the land, or the car, or the boat, etc. Indeed, in this narrow sense, the actual physical object is known not as the "property" but instead by the Latin legal term, the res, which means the "thing" -- that is, the thing itself.

However, all these terms are ALSO used by lawyers (and other people) in a different way: to mean the piece of paper called the title certificate (in the case of "title"), or the document that you signed when you bought a product (in the case of "contract") or the land or car or boat (in the case of "property").

The term "legal title" (in the ownership sense, not in the "piece of paper" sense) roughly means the sum of the attributes of ownership relating to possession and control. The term "equitable title" (or "beneficial title") roughly means the sum of the attributes of ownership relating to use and benefit. In a trust arrangement, for example, a person (called a trustee) holds "legal title" (the power to control the property) for the benefit of another person (called a beneficiary) who holds "equitable title" which is generally the right to receive a benefit from the property. In a trust, there is something called a title split. That is, in some way there is a separation between at least some of the control over the property (legal title) and some of the right to receive the benefits from the property (the equitable title). Generally, to have a valid trust, no one person can hold both 100% of the legal title and 100% of the equitable title at the same time.

All this usually has nothing to do with "title" to (in the sense of ownership of) a motor vehicle. In most cases, the person owning the vehicle owns it "outright" -- meaning that he holds 100% of legal title and 100% of equitable title. An exception would be where the vehicle is held in trust.

Again, this is not rocket science. Most people -- including most non-lawyers -- are able to handle the fact that both legal terms and other terms in English have more than one meaning. And most people are able to keep the different meanings straight without the help that you apparently feel you need.

Example: Pull out a good collegiate English dictionary and look up the word "run". Your silly posts here are the equivalent of trying to convince us that someone is being "vague" if he says he is going to "run" a computer program, because for you the term "run" means using one's legs to propel oneself down the street.

How old are you, anyway? Are you in grade school? Do you act this way in grade school? Are you the one playing dumb with the teacher - pretending not to understand the material? Do you act this way with your mother? Does she put up with this?

When they put a vehicle in trust they place the title in trust and split it into legal and equitable.

They place the mso in trust from day one, split the title, you get equitable title , state gets legal title.



If the car has never been titled anywhere:

The dealer that sells you the car is required by law to have what’s called a ‘Manufacturer’s or Importer’s Certificate.’ (commonly referred to as the ‘Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin or MSO’) For every new car, the MSO arrives with the car when it gets shipped to the dealer. The dealer has to provide an MSO , before the Bureau of Motor Vehicles will issue a title. Dealers don’t typically hand this out to buyers. But, you can always ask for a copy of the MSO.

While MSOs are straightforward, what happens to the MSO if a car is sent from the original dealer to a second dealer is not. So, I enlisted help from my friend Ron Burdge who is an attorney who represents consumers and who most people in Ohio consider to be THE EXPERT on auto fraud and other consumer issues. Here is his answer:

The original MSO (a title document for the vehicle and not the MSRP window sticker) does, in fact, state the ordering-retail dealer’s name, address, etc. Dealer’s do trade and transfer new vehicles too and when that happens the MSO would be signed over to the subsequent dealer and then go with the vehicle (or be sent to the dealer separately). A second dealer can not get, on its own request, a newly issued MSO showing it to be the 1st retail dealer who ordered the vehicle but a replacement MSO can be issued by the manufacturer if the first MSO is lost, etc. For any motor vehicle there can only be one MSO – it’s like the birth certificate for the vehicle. In spite of that, I have seen a case where an Rv manufacturer bought back a lemon Rv and then issued a brand new MSO for the vehicle and sold it to another dealer using the old VIN with the new MSO, and made it appear to be “new” all over again – highly illegal I am certain. That case settled quickly

http://www.nhsconsumerlawcenter.org/tag/mso


That guy has no clue, a mso a title document? Why if that were true then you could not get a new vehicle "titled by the state" without it.

[arayder]

Are you claiming that a certificate of title IS the title?

Because according to the states own definition it is NOT the title, just a record of evidence.

Where is my paper title?

Not my paper cert of title, but my title?

You start out being right-- a "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that says who has title (ownership) of the car. "Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

So the second half of your comment is meaningless-- there is no such thing as a "paper title." If you own the car, you have "title." The so-called "paper title" -- more properly called the "Certificate of Title"--is a piece of paper which recites who has title. Having that piece of paper handy, or having it on file with a public agency where it can be retrieved, is helpful if your "title" (ownership) is ever questioned, but the piece of paper is not the "title." (Or, as I once heard someone say, "the map is not the terrain.")

Great, now we are getting somewhere.

Since title is intangible, why apply for a cert of title when the mso and bill of sale work just as well?

Oh, my, you don't get it, do you?

Plus you'll pay hell trying to sell or transfer the car if you don't have the title! It would be one thing to have lost the title and have to go to the state to get record of ownership. But not having the title in the first place is just plain foolish.

[Patriotdiscussions]

You start out being right-- a "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that says who has title (ownership) of the car. "Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

So the second half of your comment is meaningless-- there is no such thing as a "paper title." If you own the car, you have "title." The so-called "paper title" -- more properly called the "Certificate of Title"--is a piece of paper which recites who has title. Having that piece of paper handy, or having it on file with a public agency where it can be retrieved, is helpful if your "title" (ownership) is ever questioned, but the piece of paper is not the "title." (Or, as I once heard someone say, "the map is not the terrain.")

Great, now we are getting somewhere.

Since title is intangible, why apply for a cert of title when the mso and bill of sale work just as well?[/quote]

Oh, my, you don't get it, do you?

Plus you'll pay hell trying to sell or transfer the car if you don't have the title! It would be one thing to have lost the title and have to go to the state to get record of ownership. But not having the title in the first place is just plain foolish.[/quote]

The mso is a title document, learn to read.

[Pottapaug1938]

You start out being right-- a "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that says who has title (ownership) of the car. "Title" is not a piece of paper-- it is an intangible thing-- the legal ownership.

So the second half of your comment is meaningless-- there is no such thing as a "paper title." If you own the car, you have "title." The so-called "paper title" -- more properly called the "Certificate of Title"--is a piece of paper which recites who has title. Having that piece of paper handy, or having it on file with a public agency where it can be retrieved, is helpful if your "title" (ownership) is ever questioned, but the piece of paper is not the "title." (Or, as I once heard someone say, "the map is not the terrain.")

Great, now we are getting somewhere.

Since title is intangible, why apply for a cert of title when the mso and bill of sale work just as well?

Oh, my, you don't get it, do you?

Plus you'll pay hell trying to sell or transfer the car if you don't have the title! It would be one thing to have lost the title and have to go to the state to get record of ownership. But not having the title in the first place is just plain foolish.[/quote]

The mso is a title document, learn to read.[/quote]

Simple. I sell you a car; you buy it; and then after I am long gone you find out that I didn't own the car to begin with. The Certificate of Title takes care of that. The bill of sale do not. It transfers only whatever title I have.

As for the MSO, it works only when the car is first purchased from the original dealer. It takes the place of a Certificate of Title when the first owner goes to register it. You'll never see one when the car is resold.

[Pottapaug1938]

When they put a vehicle in trust they place the title in trust and split it into legal and equitable.

They place the mso in trust from day one, split the title, you get equitable title , state gets legal title.

That's so idiotic it doesn't even merit a response. In addition to your ignorance about other kinds of law, you know nothing about trust law. You probably think that the words "In God We Trust" on our money form some sort of legal trust.

[arayder]

Simple. I sell you a car; you buy it; and then after I am long gone you find out that I didn't own the car to begin with. The Certificate of Title takes care of that. The bill of sale do not. It transfers only whatever title I have.

As for the MSO, it works only when the car is first purchased from the original dealer. It takes the place of a Certificate of Title when the first owner goes to register it. You'll never see one when the car is resold.

Exactly, Pottapaug. Trying to sell a car without a title either in possession of the owner who owns the car outright, or the bank, if the car is being financed just ain't gonna work.

It seems to me it what PD is telling us about ignoring the title process entirely is a really bad idea.

[arayder]

When they put a vehicle in trust they place the title in trust and split it into legal and equitable.

They place the mso in trust from day one, split the title, you get equitable title , state gets legal title.

That's so idiotic it doesn't even merit a response. In addition to your ignorance about other kinds of law, you know nothing about trust law. You probably think that the words "In God We Trust" on our money form some sort of legal trust.

Our new friend has simply run out of stuff to say on the subject and is attempting his usual ruse of pretending we are on a voyage of discovery with him.

That may work in sovcit world, but not here.

[Patriotdiscussions]

When they put a vehicle in trust they place the title in trust and split it into legal and equitable.

They place the mso in trust from day one, split the title, you get equitable title , state gets legal title.

That's so idiotic it doesn't even merit a response. In addition to your ignorance about other kinds of law, you know nothing about trust law. You probably think that the words "In God We Trust" on our money form some sort of legal trust.

Our new friend has simply run out of stuff to say on the subject and is attempting his usual ruse of pretending we are on a voyage of discovery with him.


That may work in sovcit world, but not here.

It works great, I can not tell you how many atv's I have sold using just the mso. Would be no different then using it for a car.

[Pottapaug1938]

Your state must not have title requirements for ATVs, or else they use MSOs as certificates of titles. That would never work in Massachusetts. I buy all my cars secondhand; and while I don't recall ever seeing a MSO, I have seen ceitificates of title on all of them.

[arayder]

Our new friend has simply run out of stuff to say on the subject and is attempting his usual ruse of pretending we are on a voyage of discovery with him.

That may work in sovcit world, but not here.

It works great, I can not tell you how many atv's I have sold using just the mso. Would be no different then using it for a car.

My BS detector just went off, PD. It would be different with a car and you know it!

You can ride your atv around the farm and the sheriff doesn't care. The car is for driving the kids to school. Not having a driver's license, registration and insurance is a problem in that real world. . .and you can't get the registration and insurance without having the title, or showing that the finance company does.

The sovcit subculture is rife with stories about living large. . .buying and selling cars and trucks to other sovs with just the mso. Those tall tales are just like those about getting by with no driver's licenses and stiffing the taxman.

You're playing to that audience.

Funny that there's nothing said in the cult about the poor gullible sovereigns who get left holding the bag at the end of the process because nobody will buy their trucks without getting the title transferred.

Neither are there any stories about the common law wife who dumps the poor sovereign bubba because he can't get the kids to state subsidized day care without running afoul of the cops.