photofly:
In 1996 Wally Roberts wrote that the controller wouldn't be authorised to clear you for a straight in from POM, and if he or she did you should refuse the clearance.
http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov96.pdf - is particularly interesting. It's a bit old now, but do you know if that's still the official position?
What's changed since I wrote that article is some 15 years of ever increasing use of GPS RNAV. Further, the provision for controllers to clear RNAV aircraft direct to the published intermediate fix of an RNAV IAP came into effect a few years ago although controllers tend to use this provision on all types of IAPs, and even where the IF isn't charted, such as the KEMT VOR or GPS-A IAP. POM is the IF and should have long since been charted. And, since it is an overlay IAP, it is arguably an RNAV IAP. So, although the article is still valid except as to the recent RNAV direct-to-the-IF provision, I would simply accept the clearance today unless I were receiving a check ride. Why tick off the controllers and end up being "punished" in ways they are so capable of doing.
I have to say the situation is entirely different in Canada, where you can (with the cooperation of ATC) fly direct to any fix on the plate using the MSA and commence the approach from there.
MSAs are operational altitudes in Canada, unlike the U.S. But, going to just any fix places the burden on you to assure containment in perhaps a very narrow TERPs segment if you descend out of the MSA while still in the course change maneuver.