The $22k Joyride

Yeah. I'm kinda bull-headed. "Cancelled and Surrendered" is the legal term for what I did with my DL. Received confirmation from DPS that it was cancelled and surrendered.

(EDIT: changed "revoked" to "surrendered" as that is the term I used at the time.)

When neither my state congress-critter, Senator, nor the DPS would provide clarification to written requests it seemed the only way to get the question answered was to take it to the only remaining branch of government.

After trying all three branches all I now know for sure is that the court dismissed the matter. Likely because it can't hear a case about a law that doesn't exist. There was no detailed explanation for the dismissal. The administrators and legislators will send you to the other should you query them. Weasels all. They seem to prefer to avoid answering this question.

For me it was the principle of the thing. The written statutes, once clearly understood, do not support the common misconception that a requirement exists to hold a Driver License for non-commercial operation of a motor vehicle in Texas. This jives with my understanding of the restrictions the federal constitution places on states law-making.

I've invited several to show me otherwise, conclusively, measuring against this definition for the chapter. The absence of a punishment clause or description of any offense for no Driver License is the clincher.

I think the Driver License requirement myth is a cleverly crafted obfuscation. (But, I re-applied for, and again hold one just the same. Life without is too much hassle when everyone else prefers the myth over the fact. Cognitive Dissonance rules!)

Well you could say that about virtually all traffic laws in "some situations", I mean honestly, how many times does one need to wheelie on a public street for ones safety?

But officer, I needed to speed to get away froma bee, I'm allergic.....yeah, yeah, thats it..........

Whats the point of all of this other than esoteric legal wrangling?

Do you think we would be better off not having any basic requirements for operating motor vehicles on public roads?

Wouldn't your obvious legal talents be better used fixing the flaws in system rather than just messing with it?

1 what requirements ? a 20 question test any idiot can pass, and -maybe- 10 minutes of operating a vehicle with a guide ? that's it. that's all. no training, no further nothing.

2 i don't think a lifetime of effort would be enough to correct 1/2 the stupid laws on the books today. thankfully, we have hordes of people being paid to write even more laws, right now, so we will never run out of stupid.

I think I read about that on one of those Freemen Of The Land websites...outside of his own delusional universe I can imagine the fun it would be trying to explain that one to a state trooper by the side of the road...

I don't think we have basic requirements now. We simply believe that we do. I think that sharing this information is one way of addressing the flaws, which are in the minds of people more than the system of law itself.

The point I guess was grasping a better understanding of what the founders intended in regard to liberty, personal responsibility, etc. and how it is supposed to translate into our rules of the road.

The problem, as far as I can see, is how, at some level of the human psyche, most folks prefer to be told what to do rather than take responsibility for their actions. Or, they at least prefer to avoid taking blame for their actions which cause harm.

I think there should be private tiered licensing agencies. Achieving higher tiers would result in lower insurance and registration costs. These would not be run or required by government. They could be run by the insurance companies, or some other private entities.

People would be judged on their performance and be rewarded for improvement. It would change the dynamic so that people would be encouraged to better their skills, or pay higher fees for insurance and registration than their neighbor who holds a higher tier.

In a traffic stop or collision investigation the license tier might be a determining factor as to the outcome.

The government would still regulate commercial drivers as they do now. Though the private tiered licensing could compliment that.

I think that people should be taught and encouraged to be responsible for their actions, rather than treating them like sheep with the illusion that someone else will always be there to protect them.

Once, years ago I was in a collision with an unlicensed and uninsured driver from a nation South of Texas' border. He ran a stop sign to cross to the median of a divided multi-lane surface road in Houston and I t-boned the car in the left rear tire while riding on a Suzuki GS1000. A van in the right lane beside me blocked my view of the car. That driver slammed on the brakes, but I didn't know why. Then the car was in front of me. Boom!

The bike was totaled, and I got about thirty stitches and a bunch of bruises. There were a dozen witnesses names taken by some friends of mine who were following me back from lunch. But the part that always confused me was that the Houston cop helped this guy change the flat tire on his car and sent him on his way rather than issuing a ticket, arresting him, or, impounding the car.

It always left me somewhat confused about what happened and why. I had been assaulted and my property and body were injured. Yet this guy just rolls on down the road without a license. WTF?

At least I have answered the license part.

If most people prefer to be coddled and guided, that is fine by me. But, allow those of us who understand the law and who take responsibility for their actions to exist on a different level from those who do not. At least the enforcers should be better educated on what is and is not actually in the law books. (there is also no punishment clause in the statutes for exceeding the speed posted on the "prima facie speed limit signs")

There is a lot of shenanigans being perpetrated upon drivers that is simply not supported by the statutes themselves.

If something isn't required by law, what is the advantage for us all pretending that it is?

What stops the folks who should know this from answering questions about it in a straight-forward manner?

This quasi-lying by those who have taken an oath to defend and support a document called the constitution seem to be acting in a way counter to that end.

I don't like being misled or outright lied to by those elected or appointed to serve the people. Those who should be examples to all.

I'm not quite sure why you or anyone else would feel otherwise. Though I must accept that this is indeed the way the ball bounces. It just seems weird to me.

Wow, it should be (or not actually) fun to have you as a neighboor.

I've seen a lot of that crap too. Loosely based on misinterpretations. Mostly stuff that would cause more trouble than it is worth. However, many of these sites are derived from some kernel of truth.

Those guys want to reform the laws or the government. I just want to play by the rules that are already there.

If what I did is based on delusion, how was it dismissed by the court after attending three hearings on the case?

Perhaps, if the statutes support it and people believe otherwise, the delusion is in the mind of someone else. I think this is more likely the case. People want to believe their public servants are acting based upon the law. This isn't always the case. How many would know the difference? What would most call someone who did, if it differed with what they are comfortable believing?

If the trooper is unaware of the law, it would be foolish to try to dissuade them. I didn't argue with the Deputy who cited me. I just wanted to get cited and take it to the court room, and that is the first step in that journey.

From a perspective of logic and written law I was able to demonstrate that the state has no jurisdiction in the matter of "no driver license." (also have achieved the same result with a speeding ticket. No jurisdiction, case dismissed.)

You are living in a dream world, Neo.

Would you prefer the Red pill or Blue pill? :eek1

For me it would be wrong to go along with the charade after I have found the fact of the matter. If others awaken to these facts and take personal responsibility for reigning in false accusations the world would be a better place.

It is always easier just to go along as wrongs are done around us. I can't blame anyone for taking the path of least resistance. It is the natural thing to do. Being a human takes a little more effort as we have the ability to discern wrong, though do not have any obligation to act on it.

I try to keep a sense of humor about it all.

No axe to grind. Just a little bewildered by the knowledge I have found.

And, it is best to avoid these topics in casual conversation. So my neighbors are safe.

But I do like to plant seeds out in the interwebz, in case someone else might find it interesting enough to look into for themselves.

It has helped to understand better the inspiration behind the story, Alice in Wonderland. FWIW. (it was written as a political statement)

The fact that there's a vaguely defined law against wheelies is only a minor part of the problem.

It becomes an issue when it's a vaguely defined law against wheelies that can get you a ticket of over $1000 and an impounded bike. This law can be applied whether you needed to wheelie over debris for safety, or you were showing off to your idiot friends.

Stop with that silly talk!!!

521.001 6(b) means the state can still suspend or revoke someone who doesn't have a driver's license. All states have something similar.

What color is your KLR?

I routinely have to get on the binders after "merging" onto the interstate.

I agree that all states have something similar. They must have.

I disagree that when a sentence reads:

"License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:

(A) a driver's license;


(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and


(C) a nonresident's operating privilege.




Short form:

"License" (for this chapter) means authorization ... issued under or granted by the state and it includes the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether that person holds a driver's license. It also includes a driver's license (as defined for this chapter) and a nonresident's operating privilege.


Maybe reading it this way clarifies that it has nothing to do with what you suggested. There doesn't seem to be anything regarding suspension or revocation in this chapter except in reference to those who have applied for and received a Texas driver license.

It is an issue of contract. The application is a contract. Once under contract the rules stipulated for holding the driver license apply to that person. Those who have not entered into this contract are not bound by those rules.

What would be revoked or suspended with a driver who holds no license?

Thank you for a great example of trying to bend a very straight-forward definition to fit what you would like to continue to believe.

I went through the same phases of denial at the beginning. After reading more on court decisions, better understanding contract law and the basis of our legal system (common law), learning the fine points about how writing legal stuff differs from regular conversation, and purchasing a couple of law dictionaries as references, I've come to understand why it is written this way.

Without this rather well hidden gem the entire chapter may not pass the test of constitutionality.

Just to be clear, I have no illusion that this is a conspiracy. It is merely momentum of one bad choice followed by another.

My best guess is that back in the day the state wrote laws to regulate commercial use of the roads and required licensing for commercial drivers. Pretty soon some schmuck who wasn't a commercial driver wanted to have a license to inflate his ego. Then another, and another, hounding their representatives until someone made it possible so that those who are not required to have a license, could have a license. That is the most logical chain of events I can fathom which would lead to this. Now, after generations of this foolishness it is accepted as if it were required by all.

A license clearly isn't required for non-commercial operation, and there is a very good reason why it isn't. Only those who have taken the time to learn why can connect the dots. They don't teach this stuff in school any more, and the attorneys and other officials who rake in the dough over this aren't about to see it any other way. But, the fact remains that this is what is written, and, they cannot change this or it will fail in court.

Why?

The government has the right to control use of public assets.

Believe what you want, but it is there only to give the state the authority to suspend or revoke the "license" of someone who doesn't actually have a drivers license.

Do you have a reference to substantiate this claim?

Unless you consider people and their liberty as "public assets" I can't quite understand your statement.

As to the whys and wherefores;

The state has the right to regulate commerce.

They have an obligation to maintain the public roadways, because the people voted to collect taxes on fuel sales for that purpose.

No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation to contract. (meaning that people can contract aspects of their liberty and freedom away if they choose to. DL, SSN, Military enlistment, public office, etc.)

No state shall pass any law that impairs the rights reserved by the people. (life, liberty, property, guns, secure from unlawful searches and seizures, that sort of thing)

Some of these concepts are from that troublesome document those old fogies wrote back in the late 1700s. Probably not applicable any more.

Might be worth a read though, just to come up to speed.

Please. Show me the statute that indicates what you describe as a punishable offense.

I've looked, and have asked others who should know to show me. So far we don't have a winner.

Maybe you can succeed where I and they have failed.

I'm rooting for you. Let's see what you've got to show.

As you say, "Believe what you want." I prefer to see the proof.