short history of optional titling and registration

John: We here in Oregon have been in battle to get the truth exposed. The Department of Transportation is one of the biggest racketeering operations in existence all tied into the trucking industry and insurance companies. We have the proof and evidence after years of research and what I call forenic paper  investigating. We are getting close, but the battle continues and if the truth ever gets into the hands of the right people or patriots, I know of several high ranking public officials or should I say corporate officials that could end up in jail for a long time. As we know the JUSTUS system is as corrupt as it gets from the scum at the bottom all the way to the scum at the top. Anyway, the following is was written by Richard L Koenig who is the spear head on the matters of our liberty of locomotion. He is considered the top expert on the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code and has paid the price for being so... I submit that an individual who breaks a law (or mythical law) that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King Jr. This man has a story most would not believe and it's not just all about him. "When armed force compels compliance with mythical laws and money is demanded for its violation, power will corrupt and greed will never be satisfied." Richard L Koenig PS: The attachment is a bonus    -------Original Message------- From: Richard Koenig Date: 4/22/2013 8:18:31 PM To: oregonjusticeforall@yahoo.com Subject: short history of optional titling and registration Check this out.  Comments are desired.  Only a few people have seen this, or a similar draft.  I'm not sure about including the second part that is in a different font, but I felt that the shortness of the history left too much unexplained.  Do I need to combine the two sections and cut it down over all?  I didn't want to get so involved when I started the project. -- Richard L. Koenig This document is definitely NOT about “Legal Stuff” ODOT’s 2012 “Optional” Titling and Registration Rules OAR 735-022-0130 AND OAR 735-032-0055 respectively: A brief history Authorizing Statutes:  ORS 803.035, 803.040 and 803.310, Optional Titling and Registration Have you ever heard thatquot;;"> In 1985 DMV’s Director Moomaw was also a member of “an agency of the Supreme Court”, formerly known as the “Traffic Court Rules Committee”, but the name had been changed during its existence to the “Minor Court Rules Committee”. nt a legitimate face on extortion to broaden your perspective.         The authorizing statutes were created in order to prevent loss of an unspecified amount of revenue .  In 1985, DMV Director, David P. Moomaw told Oregon’s Legislative Assembly that his agency had been receiving “some” revenue NOT AUTHORIZED IN CURRENT LAW.  His proposed law provided for the “Optional Titling and Registration” of most vehicles, which are not required to be titled and registered, so that his agency would not “lose” the revenue stream to which it had become accustomed.  Of course such an assertion is questionable on its face, because one does not lose something that one has never had legal claim to (fees collected without authority in law are “unlawful” and are therefore subject to being reimbursed).  In 1985 DMV’s Director Moomaw was also a member of “an agency of the Supreme Court”, formerly known as the “Traffic Court Rules Committee”, but the name had been changed during its existence to the “Minor Court Rules Committee”.  Of course the separation of powers doctrine constrains an officer of the Executive Branch of Government, like Mr. Moomaw, from simultaneously serving in another branch of government.  Mr. Moomaw wasn’t the only Executive Branch officer on the Minor Court Rules Committee, the Superintendent of the Oregon State Police was a statutorily described member of the Committee as well.  The most important mission of the Minor Court Rules Committee was to make the general public feel welcome in Traffic Court where they had long been expected to pay fees and fines for non- compliance with laws that are specific to licensed commercial interests making the public highways a place of business hauling persons or property for hire. In searching the files of the Legislative Revenue Office to determine the extent of the financial impact, one discovers that no analysis of who was to pay how much for what, was done, undoubtedly because Moomaw’s revenue preserving bill was introduced under a Senate Bill number.  Inasmuch as “a penny saved is a penny earned”, and the fact that Mr. Moomaw was admittedly intent on saving a revenue stream never before authorized by law, there can be no doubt that SB 124 of 1985 was a revenue raising bill.   The Oregon Constitution at Art. IV, Sec. 18 says Mr. Moomaw’s bill, now encoded at ORS 803.035, 803.040 and 803.310 can not be legitimate because “all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives”.  Legislative Counsel staff, including a gentleman named Bradd Swank, whose job it is to draft legislative measures and assign bill numbers to them, must be presumed to know the law that governs their jobs.  Therefore, it may further be “legally presumed” that the LARGEST revenue raising bill ever to have received a majority vote by Oregon’s Legislative Assembly was willfully concealed from the staff of Legislative Revenue Office to prevent the analysis they would ordinarily perform, merely by hiding it behind a Senate Bill number, instead of the constitutionally required House Bill number. The opening sentence of Mr. Moomaw’s law says there are the TWO classes of vehicles which, by law, have never been expected to be titled or registered, those which are “not subject to”, and those which are “exempt from” the titling and registration requirements.   The option of DMV to issue documents of title and registration to such vehicles is, ostensibly, triggered at the request of an owner of one of these vehicles.  Note:  The stated intent of the bill was to apply the same provisions to both titling and registration, but through “clerical error” the optional registration section now has no mention of the group of vehicles which is “not required to be registered for any reason”.   The vehicles which may be optionally titled and registered are not described in the statutes, but are listed as non-descript “categories of vehicles, types of vehicles or otherwise”.  The one clear message that comes across in an otherwise vague section, is that there certainly are a lot of vehicles that wouldn’t normally be titled and registered (How many “categories” are there, how many “types”, not enough to encompass all the “otherwise” vehicles, but nobody seems to know). Putting these two groups of vehicles within a body of law which is dedicated to “vehicles operated over the highways of this state for compensation or profit” (ORS 803.030(14)(c) and 803.305(14)(c)), already constitutes a willful violation of the single subject clause at Article IV, Section 20 by someone, an attorney, who worked in the office of Legislative Counsel in 1985 and, as an attorney, had sworn to uphold the constitutions.  It contains far more than one subject; introduces these vehicles into a body of law that regulates a different subject class of vehicles; and whatever is meant by the language, “categories of vehicles, types of vehicles or otherwise”, is so vague as to be void for that reason alone, and these reasons are in addition to the fact the bill was introduced as a Senate Bill.     Although Mr. Moomaw’s spokeswoman, Joanne Peterson, represented to the legislative committee that these new sections were prompted in response to numerous owners beseeching the agency to issue vehicle title and registration as “a favor”, not one of the owners who were to become the beneficiaries of these laws appeared to testify during the commitd be provided of the rule making proceedings (meaning the “NOTICE” was in name only).  Clearly, every member of the general public would “choose” to title… or not to title.  It should be noted that never before in the history of Oregon rule making has “the general public” been identified as the “financially impacted parties” (laws and implementing rules are made to regulate many “persons” but not for the people) . Of course no one showed up for the public input hearing that had been scheduled just a few days before Christmas 2004.  Only one person signed up to present data, views or arguments pursuant to rule making law at the time of the hearing for the financially impacted parties, Feb. 16, 2005 (but he had inside information from a friend in ODOT).  At thmbers of the general public who choose to apply for title” (Imagine choosing to be financially impacted).          Even though the financially impacted parties were now clearly identified, the DMV hearings officer, David Eyerly, who prepared the NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING said because there was no way to determine how many people would choose to title their vehicles, that no notice would be provided of the rule making proceedings (meaning the “NOTICE” was in name only).  Clearly, every member of the general public would “choose” to title… or not to title.  It should be noted that never before in the history of Oregon rule making has “the general public” been identified as the “financially impacted parties” (laws and implementing rules are made to regulate many “persons” but not for the people) . Of course no one showed up for the public input hearing that had been scheduled just a few days before Christmas 2004.  Only one person signed up to present data, views or arguments pursuant to rule making law at the time of the hearing for the financially impacted parties, Feb. 16, 2005 (but he had inside information from a friend in ODOT).  At the hearing, he was told to relinquish the microphone because the time for “public comment” was closed, even though he had signed up, as required, to testify as “an interested party”.  Under threat, he cut his presentation short, but not before leaving an information package for the record containing relevant pages of the “legislative history” of Mr. Moomaw’s Senate Bill 124 of 1985. The resulting rule did NOT describe the vehicles which might be titled upon request his Senate Bill 124 and implementing rule.  Being subject to all of the provisions of  the Vehicle Code means registration plate, driver license, motor vehicle fuel tax, parking meters and of course “mandatory insurance”.  Basically, the idea was that if a member of the general public chose to sign up, he or she would be expected to do what motor vehicle operators do, or pay the fines for non-compliance. A State Representative, prompted by a constituent, approached the Office of Legislative Counsel, which is charged with reviewing rules to assure conformity with legislative intent.  The legislator pointede="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"> Time for a reality check:  Mr. Moomaw’s law included a section about the effect of titling a vehicle, now encoded at ORS 803.040.  Any member of the general public who might choose, wittingly or not, to title his or her personal use vehicle would thereby make the vehicle “subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code” under this section.  This is exactly what Mr. Moomaw had admitted was “not authorized in current law”, and that was supposed to be fixed with his Senate Bill 124 and implementing rule.  Being subject to all of the provisions of  the Vehicle Code means registration plate, driver license, motor vehicle fuel tax, parking meters and of course “mandatory insurance”.  Basically, the idea was that if a member of the general public chose to sign up, he or she would be expected to do what motor vehicle operators do, or pay the fines for non-compliance. A State Representative, prompted by a constituent, approached the Office of Legislative Counsel, which is charged with reviewing rules to assure conformity with legislative intent.  The legislator pointed out rule vagueness and attendant problems with program accessibility to the general public.  In addition, rule adoption irregularities were brought to the attention of Legislative Counsel, Dexter Johnson.  In spite of the general non effect of the rule on agency practice, Dexter Johnson wrote a brief opinion to the effect that the rule which resulted from an unconstitutional revenue raising bill was just fine (presumably the vagueness of the rule accurately conformed to the vagueness of the authorizing statute, but the issue of intent was studiously avoided). The issue of optional registration was not visited until 2009 when a financially impacted party, member of the general public, with standing under rule making laws to initiate a new rule, or amend or repeal an existing rule, submitted a proposed rule predicated on the assumption that the authorizing statute was legitimate.  The proposed rule(s) would have also had the simultaneous effect of repealing and replacing the optional titling rule.  The proposed rule highlighted the need for anyone “requesting” to title and register a “vehicle not subject to [mandatory] titling and registration”, to be fully informed of the implications of their choice, which is that the vehicle then becomes subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code, including privilege fees, taxes and fines, which had been the goal of the Minor Court Rules Committee and their executive branch member, Mr. Moomaw.  ODOT’s Director, Matthew Garrett, prepared a “Request for Action” directed to the Transportation Commissioners who, by law, vote on rules only after the prescribed series of hearings.  Mr. Garrett requested that the Commissioners vote to deny themselves an opportunity to consider the proposed rule, prior to any hearings being scheduled.  In preparing for the Commissioner meeting of October 21, 2009, Mr. Garrett told his Rules Coordinator NOT place a copy of the proposed rule in the information package that is routinely made available to the Commissioners prior to each vote.  The fact that the Commissioners voted to not consider the proposed rule, and that their vote was taken absent any required input, is a matter of public record.  This can be confirmed by using the public record law:  Request records of Oregon Transportation Commission meeting of October 21, 2009,  Matt Garrett’s Request for Action in regard to optional titling and registration and the vote of Commissioners. Neither the author of the proposed rule, nor his state representative, Jules Kopel Bailey, who had overseen its drafting, were notified that the Commissioners would be asked to refrain from considering the proposed rule on October 21, 2009.  When the author was notified a month later that the Commissioners had voted to dispense with the proposed rule, he began to inquire and was soon arrested for questioning authority by the US Marshalls Fugitive Recovery Team who found him at his office.  He ended up being incarcerated 300 days, including four and a half months at the Oregon State Hospital before being released, charges dismissed, without a day in court to make a record of the events leading to his arrest. While the interested party was being held, ODOT went through a new round of rule making to repeal and replace the optional titling rule and create an optional registration rule.  The lack of a registration rule to legitimize the sale of license plates to members of the general public who might request was clearly a glaring hole in the scam, but in view of Legislative Counsel’s approval of the 2005 optional titling rule, one might wonder why that rule was repealed and replaced at the same time.  The working hypothesis of this writer is that the STATEMENT OF NEED AND FISCAL IMPACT that particularly identified the financially impacted parties as “members of the general public who choose to apply for title” (for any vehicle they might own) needed to be buried under another layer of paper, and fast. The new rules, which were certified finally adopted on May 12, 2012, provide for the optional titling and registration of fire trucks!  That’s right, the owners of fire trucks may now choose to pay the titling and registration fees and by doing so, make their vehicles “subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code”.  DMV “certificates of title” (not ACTUAL title) are also one proof of ownership.  Now when the people of a city or town lose their fire trucks, or one is stolen, owners who have chosen to obtain a “certificate of title” can use it to help get the missing fire truck back.  Imagine the popularity of a rule like this!  The absurdity of the notion that fire truck owners would choose to pay to become regulated so that they have to stop for traffic control devices on the way to a fire is a measure of the disdain that the rule makers have for the victims of their scam .  Inquiry has yet to be made about how many fire truck owners have actually chosen to title their vehicles.    Fire trucks are in the same list of vehicles as “solely for personal use” vehicles, which is encoded at ORS 801.208.   This section describes sub groups of “commercial vehicles” called “commercial motor vehicles” and at subsection 2, “commercial motor vehicles” are contrasted with those vehicles that are NOT subject to the titling requirement, including the fire trucks and solely for personal use vehicles. So now the question arises, has DMV decided to withdraw the option for the general public to title their vehicles and become regulated, OR since fire trucks and solely for personal use vehicles are in the same list of vehicles which are NOT required, are fire trucks and solely for personal use vehicles both up for optional titling?   CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION In corroboration of the titling and registration requirments, ORS 801.305 says the general public “use” their vehicles on the highways of this state “as a matter of RIGHT” (no hoops to jump through).  The all powerful people, through their Legislators reaffirmed this law as recently as 2007, but… ORS 801.050 says, “Subject to compliance with the motor vehicle laws of this state, owners and operators of motor vehicles are granted the PRIVILEGE to use the highways of this state”.  This language was included in the Vehicle Code at the time of the revision of the 1980s.   The Executive Branch, through its Department of Transportation, adopted Oregon Administrative Rule 735-016-0020 to implement the revised code having to do with the Titling and Registration and Driver licensing chapters of the Vehicle Code.  At subsection (7) of that rule, “Operating a motor vehicle in Oregon”, is defined to mean, “the physical operation of a vehicle for BUSINESS purposes”. ORS 221.485 is an encoded finding of the Legislative Assembly to the effect that the operation of “for hire vehicles” and the “owners and operators” thereof are matters of public concern such that they are found to be proper subjects of regulation by government. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS: The Judicial Branch of government, through its agency, “Minor Court Rules Committee” through its Executive Branch member, DMV Director David P. Moomaw, have admitted that there are many vehicles that are not subject to the titling and registration requirements, and consequently are not subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code (can’t get traffic tickets).  To confirm, consult the most recent Executive Secretary of the Minor Court Rules Committee, Douglas M. Bray, now Trial Court Administrator for Multnomah County’s Circuit Court. The Legislative Branch’s staff person, former assistant Legislative Counsel, Bradd Swank drafted Mr. Moomaw’s revenue preserving measure and assigned it a Senate Bill number, which had the effect of precluding analysis by the Legislative Revenue Office of Oregon’s biggest revenue bill such that it could never be lawfully enacted. The Executive Branch knows full well the implications of what is going on as reflected in the ODOT rule making processes that acknowledged that only “members of the general public who choose to apply” will be financially impacted by titling their vehicles (now repealed and replaced and obscured by the rule that lets fire truck owners title and register their vehicles) AND that “’Operating a motor vehicle in Oregon’ means physically operating a vehicle for business purposes”. For confirmation of any and all of the above information, the reader is referred to ODOT’s Rules Coordinator.  Make request for the files related to OAR 735-022-0120 (the 2005 optional titling rule);  OAR 735-022-0130 (the 2012 optional titling for fire trucks);  OAR 735-032-0055 (optional registration for fire trucks); and OAR 735-016-0020 definition of “Operating a motor vehicle in Oregon”.  Be sure to ask for the complete file, including exhibits submitted to the Transportation Commissioners.  This writer is available for rendering sworn testimony.  He was responsible for initiating ODOT’s “optional titling” rule making process in 2005 and the only “interested party” to testify;  He wrote the proposed “optional titling and registration” rule of 2009, and was arrested for questioning authority;  He interviewed assistant Legislative Counsel Bradd Swank after having read his book , “Introduction to the Vehicle Code, 1986 – 1987”, on how and why he drafted the present vehicle code, including the optional titling and registration statutes;  He has made many Public Record Law Requests to agencies of the state and governmental subdivisions in the course of researching the misapplication of the Vehicle Code to the traveling public;  Being possessed of rather obscure information, he has been called and appeared as an expert witness in Traffic Court on the application of the motor vehicle laws on a number of occasions and is yet to be rebutted.  Department of Justice Spokeman, John Ellis initially informed this writer of the discrepancy between the commercial motor vehicle laws and traffic enforcement policy to ticket the traveling public in 1995.  This writer has made motor vehicle law his focus since then. Dated:  April 18, 2013 Richard L. Koenig Some people have commented to the effect that the story of Mr. Moomaw’s law and implementing rules is “complicated”.  The brief history of Optional Titling and Registration is not really “complicated”.  The story is about collusion between many public servants over the course of 30 years to obscure reality.  The tactics used are secrecy, deceit and even violence.   It may defy a reader’s ability to comprehend that significant elements of the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of government (as well as  Attorney General and the Secretary of State’s Office) have all acted together to accomplish an illegal end, instead as a check and balance against each other, but that does not make it “complicated”. Not everybody mentioned in this story is a bad person.  Many peripheral players are merely lacking the education required by law to properly perform their official duties, foremost among them being to check the tendency of their supervisors to abuse power.  If schools were not violating the law to systemically deprive students of the courses in constitutional studies that must be provided commencing no later than the beginning of the eighth grade and continuing through the University System, executive branch officers would not have been named as members of a judicial branch agency; a senate bill to raise revenue would never have flown; violations of the single subject and plainly worded clauses of the constitution would not have been written; and an implementing rule naming “the general public” as “financially interested parties” would not have been accepted for filing by clerks at the Office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Moomaw’s Law is instructive about the evolution of a government to something that is beyond the control of “the people” in whom all power is inherent.  While the fetters which were intended to bind government have been loosed, the people have been systematically disabled by the “education system”.  To create some kind of meaningful time frame, though not all inclusive, please note that the law requiring schools “to emphasize” the Oregon and United States Constitutions and such classes as will promote “obedience to the law” was enacted in 1923.  No high school graduate alive to talk about it today has ever reported receiving the education required by what is now encoded at ORS 336.057 and 336.067.  Personnel officers hiring help for public offices certainly do not expect an applicant to possess the education required by law to have even graduated from high school. The Legislative Assembly formed a special interim committee to study how to come up with enough money to fix the damage the commercial haulers were causing to the “Public Right of Way” in 1941, at the outset of the second World War.  In order to ask members of the transportation industry why they weren’t paying enough taxes to fix the roads they were damaging, the committee created a comprehensive mailing list of all commercial haulers licensed to do business in Oregon during their first even year existence.  During the war years, the people had little gas to go anywhere on the highway, but the interim committees continued to be reauthorized as highways deteriorated.  With a comprehensive mailing list compiled at government expense, the corporate shippers and haulers gained a unified voice, now the “Oregon Trucking Association”, that began to influence legislation. The Traffic Court Rules Committee was unlawfully enacted into being in 1959, mixing executive branch officers with officers of the court.  Oregon’s Judicial Commission began gathering and comparing data from the experimental efforts of the sister states to maximize profit as a result of adjusting procedure in traffic courts in the 1970s (many of the reports of soaring profit margins reviewed by the Judicial Commission found that it was not even necessary to schedule trials, because 50% of the experimental group would send in their money if given a chance to pay the fines and forget it). Interbranch conversations began to contemplate a complete revamping of Oregon’s Motor Vehicle Laws and in 1979 the decision was made to commence that effort the following legislative session.  The revision to what we know today as the Vehicle Code was the largest reorganization of a body of law ever untaken in Oregon and consequently called “The Whale” by capitol insiders.  It took three legislative sessions to complete, with Mr. Moomaw’s Law being introduced rather late in the final session on April Fool’s Day, 1985.  When Mr. Moomaw’s petition for authority to keep on doing what had never been legal was read into the record, only two people in the room knew what was going on besides the DMV presenters.  The Chairwoman, Senator Jane Cease, then in her fourth session as chair of the Transportation Committee (two in the House and two in the Senate) and Committee Administrator, Claudia Howells, who was to soon rise in the ranks from a legislative clerk to become Director of ODOT’s Rail Division. All this information is sitting in our beautiful marble and Persian Carpeted State Archives facility.  While I was enjoying the reading room’s floor to ceiling view windows and hand crafted solid wooden tables and chairs intended to seat one hundred or more, I noticed that almost no one else was there to enjoy it with me.  I saw an occasional bureaucrat preparing a report for a presentation, or a legislative aide on special assignment, but no people, no students.  Typically, the staff of three or four archivists outnumbered the researchers.  Wasupwidat? It is no wonder that a once free people now pay for permission to come and go as they might choose (we all “requested” to title our cars, didn’t we) and by doing so underwrite the transportation industry.  With subsidies like this coming out the whazoo, the corporate shippers and haulers can bring goods from places where labor camps are kept behind chain link fences and get them to store shelves cheaper than can be made by Oregonians, or Americans, because this is not a state specific scam (Mr. Moomaw was honored by the American Association of Highway Administrators as The Administrator of the Year, more than once). I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to get so involved, but there is so much to tell.  I’m as angry with stupid people as much as I am with the corporations who are now using the police powers of the state to enforce their extortion.  In a recent constitutionally required “Highway Cost Allocation Study” the study group found that “light passenger motor vehicles” (generically, “taxis”) are paying 67% of the costs of maintaining the infrastructure that is receiving  the vast majority of its damage from heavier vehicles (the study didn’t even attempt to apportion the actual damage between the classes of vehicles).  But the elephant in the room that nobody in the capitol talks about anymore is “the general public” who use their “solely for personal use” vehicles on the highway “as a matter of right”.   How many “light passengers vehicles”/taxis were there in that year, almost one for every man, woman and child in Oregon, not quite (three point three million light passenger vehicles, and an estimated three point five million people).  That, in itself, is ABSURD and apparently so embarrassing that the figure was not printed in the 50 plus page study, but only orally recited to the stupid legislators who were sleeping through the presentation.  Listening to this presentation, one might have gotten the impression that the traveling public and their personal use vehicles have become extinct. We all know what a “passenger” is, and likely been one when we rode a bus, flew cross country, or rode AmTrack, some of us may have even booked “passage” on an ocean liner.  “Passenger” means one who has paid for “passage” and is being “transported” by a “common carrier”.   We used to have a phrase that was interchangeable with roads and streets that was self-explanatory, “the Public Right of Way”.  Is there any doubt that the public have the right of way on the Public Right of Way?  And yet, we have not only been illegally deprived of the education the schools are required by law to provide, we have been taught that words can not be counted on to mean what a dictionary says they do.   “License” used to be commonly understood to be the permission that the people, through their public agencies, gave companies to do business in order to have some assurance of quality control.  Now, the first thing that comes to mind for many of us when we hear the term “license”, is the permission that public servants sell to people to use their own personal property, car, in the exercise of right to go to church, to the seats of government to petition for redress, to pursue happiness by going to the store to stock up on a special deal.  Is it a “privilege” to take the family car to the hospital for the birth of our new baby sister? Can our current collective state of consciousness be a result of random circumstances, or perhaps an inadvertence somewhere in our social history?  Look at the totality of the picture.  Look at the seamless sub-systems all going in the same direction and guess again.  Who, or what, has the resources to pull off a scam of such grand scale?  How much does it cost to purchase the loyalty of a legislator or attorneys in the office of Legislative Counsel, or judges on the Minor Court Rules Committee?  How about sums of money that most of us will never see in our life time?  Remember, Oregon is just one state, where is it different?  I only know what I’ve read or been told (occasionally by the scammers).  I certainly don’t know everything about the underwriting of corporate shippers and haulers by the unlawful imposition of privilege fees and taxes on most people.  I am willing to share what I do know.  To read more, enter “Richard L. Koenig” as a search term on the www.  There is also lot of material under “Right to travel versus Privilege to drive”.  There are hundreds of high court rulings that all say what you think you know is probably wrong in searchable electronic formats. Assuming that I can subsidize my own existence, I am willing to meet with groups of at least fifteen people.  In order to experience a comprehensive download of the information I have accumulated would take at least two full days, so there are many possibilities for presentations of particular focus:  creating public record law requests; interviewing bureaucrats; lobbying; dealing with traffic court; as well as the substance of what I have learned over the course of eighteen years of examining the underwriting of commercial shippers and haulers.  Custom seminar packages can be arranged given a two week notice.   If you would like to get on my email list and receive continuing updates on my research and exciting lifestyle, dodging the slings and arrows aimed at a whistleblower, send $25 and receive a table of searchable authorities, email richardl.koenig@gmail.com  use “Short history of Optional Titling” in the subject line