license to drive vs 'drivers license'

[bmielke]

I may have missed it Farmer but I think they got you with the 30-day limitation on the non-resident licenses.

That is a great point. I meant to bring that up earlier and forgot.

[Farmer Giles]

I may have missed it Farmer but I think they got you with the 30-day limitation on the non-resident licenses.

do we need to do a 'visa-run' then? I dont think so. There's no way to verify this either way. and these time limits are actually for "where an actual license is otherwise required"...youve got so many days to get one. But the nonresident exception has no limitation, because an occupational license is not issued for merely 'motoring', its just a basic civil right.

it comes down to "noncommercial driver" being really the same as "any old operator", but with a specific grant from the local or reciprocal state. enhanced privileges as Judge Roy Bean pointed out, you can be registered for insurance. and actually, come to think of it, he was wrong there too because there are companies that insure nonDL motorists. As a matter of fact some years back I held a policy from the Travelers group, they just wanted a "foreign address" for their records. I used this insurance to back up a State-issue registration, as I was the "insured driver" required in that formula.


The CA VC quote is just to point out that this concept of "no actual license" already normally exists. I really dont think we need to do a 30-day visa run and photograph ourselves holding newspaper in front of an out-of-state monument.

[Farmer Giles]

Maybe Giles should volunteer to help this guy out:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Man convicted 18 times for driving without license

"A judge has sentenced a 63-year-old man to three years in prison after his 18th conviction for driving on a revoked license. Under a plea agreement entered Monday, Lonnie Harris received credit for 62 days he spent in jail after his most recent arrest"

maybe you should, since you pretend expertise.

still no cite from Texas or anywhere else, I see.

[bmielke]

You want Cites from any state? Fine...

I give you Tennessee

Registration Required: TCA 55-4-101
Non-Residents Exempted: TC 55-4-120

Insurance: TCA 55-12-(101-140)

Licenses Everyone Needs one:TCA 55-50-301
Exemptions: TCA 55-50-304

They are too long to quote here, but are available for free Here

[Judge Roy Bean]

...because insurance only applies to IN STATE VEHICLES. and the actual motorist has nothing to do with how a vehicle is insured.

Fool - a driver must have proof of financial responsibility. In most states all you have to have is liability coverage and just because you're from somewhere else doesn't mean you don't have to have it.

... and a seized vehicle under any circumstance is releasable to its owner or secured party, and can always be towed out of the yard.

Sure it can. Once you show proof of insurance and a valid driver's license you can recover the vehicle.

...
however AGAIN, insurance only applies to vehicles from THIS STATE. Check any vehicle code, check Texas and post right here the statute requiring insurance of foreign vehicles.

Again, you have to have proof of financial responsibility. If it's not an insurance policy you can post a bond. If you don't care about what damage might occur to your car you don't have to insure it at all.

...
so thats another typical misconstruction, "you have to have insurance". no, I do not. we dont insure people. we insure motor vehicles. maybe I should stick a tag on my forehead for all the times people have said to me "you have to have plates".

The Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, in Transportation Code §601.051, states that a person may not operate a motor vehicle in Texas unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle. Transportation Code §601.002(3) defines financial responsibility as the ability to respond to damages for liability for an accident that arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.

§ 601.051. REQUIREMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:
(1) a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that complies with Subchapter D;
(2) a surety bond filed under Section 601.121;
(3) a deposit under Section 601.122;
(4) a deposit under Section 601.123; or
(5) self-insurance under Section 601.124.

Note also that there is no reference to where the person lives or came from. If you come from somewhere else and drive in Texas without evidence of insurance that covers your use of the vehicle you'll quickly find yourself on foot because you can't get insurance without a license.

Like I said, please go to Texas and drive. You won't have Internet access in the jail but once you get out, you can start making stuff up again.

[Prof]

Texas:

White v. State
2004 WL 1351420
Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.],2004.
June 17, 2004 (Approx. 6 pages)

Vaughan v. State
2002 WL 1380382
Tex.App.-Corpus Christi,2002.
June 27, 2002 (Approx. 2 pages)

Naff v. State
946 S.W.2d 529
Tex.App.-Fort Worth,1997.
May 15, 1997 (Approx. 6 pages)

Appellant David Allan Naff was convicted in the municipal court for four offenses: (1) failure to maintain financial responsibility; (2) no valid driver's license; (3) no valid motor vehicle inspection, and 4) no valid vehicle registration. The court fined him $440 for failure to maintain financial responsibility, $265 for having no valid driver's license, $268 for having no valid motor vehicle inspection, and $268 for having no valid vehicle registration. Naff appealed these judgments to the county court at law where all four convictions were affirmed.


Naff appeals the county court at law's judgments and raises three points of error. He complains that he was denied due process because: (1) the proceedings were conducted with defective complaints that were not properly sworn; (2) the city attorney or his deputy represented the State in the prosecution; and (3) the State is attempting to convert his right to travel to a privilege. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Page 531

Right to Travel
[11] In his final point of error, Naff argues that the State is violating his due process rights by attempting to convert his right to travel to a privilege. He contends that his convictions should be overturned because they violate his right to travel. Naff cites various cases that state the right to travel may not be abridged or a property right may not be infringed. See, e.g., United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178-79, 16 L.Ed.2d 239, 250 (1966) (civil rights of minorities violated by denying them the right to travel freely by use of threats and violence); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129-30, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1120, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1212-13 (1958) (right to travel denied by refusing passports to persons because they failed to *533 register as communists); Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 357-58, 235 S.W. 513, 516 (1921) (land use regulations infringe on property rights). No authority cited by Naff holds that the State may not use its police power to regulate the registration of vehicles, the inspection of vehicles, the licensing of drivers, or the requirement that drivers provide proof of financial responsibility.


[12] Driving an automobile on Texas highways is a privilege. It is not property or a property right. This privilege is subject to reasonable regulation under the State's police power in the interest of the welfare and safety of the general public. See Gillaspie v. Department of Public Safety, 152 Tex. 459, 466, 259 S.W.2d 177, 182 (1953); Taylor v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 568, 570, 209 S.W.2d 191, 192 (App.1948) (op. on reh'g); Coyle v. State, 775 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, no pet.). Thus, regulating licensing, inspection, and registration laws and requiring proof of financial responsibility as a protection for Texas citizens is a proper subject of the State's police powers and not a denial of due process. See Gillaspie, 259 S.W.2d at 182; Riggle v. State, 778 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1989, no pet.). Therefore, we overrule Naff's third point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Page 532

Took 5 minutes to locate these Texas cases.

[bmielke]

I would love to know where FG lives. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but if you try the I don't need insurance, license, or registration crap here you are going to have a cell mate after the judge stops laughing and realizes you are serious.

[The Operative]

someplace you get your mail

is irrelevant. its not a land issue. its a flag issue. there are only 2. no call for speculation, only two. either I have an actual license or I am a nonresident. and thats your mistake, the comparison is not "resident vs nonresident". If you look at at any vehicle code you will never or rarely find a requirement based on "residence". rather, we have to prove our residence in order to get anything out of the administration. if it isnt proven I must be nonresident. See, its a simple system that needs 10 minutes training, which the ruling class noticibly declines to give the police, who try to 'imagine' they know something. Yeah, an LEO is supposed to stand by the road and sift through 50 possible States and an INFINITELY possible number of "countries"?

Its you people who dont live in the real world, and maybe you do need drugs. It might help.

Complete nonsense. The only thing that you have right is that the permission to drive within a state is not based on residency. However, it is based on being a person and driving a motor vehicle. The laws concerning motor vehicles state something very similar to...

No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license or permit, or a restricted driving permit, issued under the provisions of this Act.

If you get in the driver's seat of a car, you start the engine, and you put the transmission in gear, then you are driving a motor vehicle. The exemptions mentioned in the law apply to BOTH residents and non-residents. SOME of the exemptions apply to non-residents only.

If you spend most of the year within the borders of one of the fifty states, then you are a resident of that state and the non-resident exemptions in the motor vehicle code for that state DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

All other arguments that you have made are complete nonsense and your conclusions come from your complete inability to comprehend the English language and statutory construction. The laws are clear except to dimwits like you and Van Pelt.

[David Merrill]

I may have missed it Farmer but I think they got you with the 30-day limitation on the non-resident licenses.

do we need to do a 'visa-run' then? I dont think so. There's no way to verify this either way. and these time limits are actually for "where an actual license is otherwise required"...youve got so many days to get one. But the nonresident exception has no limitation, because an occupational license is not issued for merely 'motoring', its just a basic civil right.

it comes down to "noncommercial driver" being really the same as "any old operator", but with a specific grant from the local or reciprocal state. enhanced privileges as Judge Roy Bean pointed out, you can be registered for insurance. and actually, come to think of it, he was wrong there too because there are companies that insure nonDL motorists. As a matter of fact some years back I held a policy from the Travelers group, they just wanted a "foreign address" for their records. I used this insurance to back up a State-issue registration, as I was the "insured driver" required in that formula.


The CA VC quote is just to point out that this concept of "no actual license" already normally exists. I really dont think we need to do a 30-day visa run and photograph ourselves holding newspaper in front of an out-of-state monument.

That is a great point. And valid too. The distinction in Colorado is between motor vehicle and vehicle.

I thought I had it in the bag for trial because I used law dictionaries to define the difference. It really came down to using the Code definitions but I needed to use some older law dictionaries to bring out the difference in and out of commerce with common carrier and commercial carrier. I wanted it all up front, had it in the bag, and even provided the line of questioning to the DA and the Judge before hand.

When I had the police officer on the stand for examination I resorted to the older law dictionaries the prosecutor objected and the prosecutor in the black robe sustained it. She would not let me break to try and put the argument together from the CRS definitions downstairs in the law library and would not let me borrow hers from the bench. They have since moved the law library out of the courthouse altogether.

But you might try putting that together to show us. It was such a great argument that I told them the whole thing first. I bet they even had that objection/sustained routine worked out in advance ex parte!

[Joe Dirt]

I would love to know where FG lives. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but if you try the I don't need insurance, license, or registration crap here you are going to have a cell mate after the judge stops laughing and realizes you are serious.

Part of my concern is that these idiots post this drivel for an audience of equal or lesser idiots and it is believed. Back in 1999 a buddy of mine got clipped for a DWI in NJ. That state provides for an automatic six month suspension after conviction with NO exceptions... no limited licenses, no work permits, no nuthin'.

He paid some fool for a piece of arse wiping material called a constitutional driving license and got back on the road. The long story short, the judge was not amused but somewhat helpful. He was able to serve his 30 days on weekends.

[Farmer Giles]

...because insurance only applies to IN STATE VEHICLES. and the actual motorist has nothing to do with how a vehicle is insured.

Fool - a driver must have proof of financial responsibility. In most states all you have to have is liability coverage and just because you're from somewhere else doesn't mean you don't have to have it.

wrong. the owner of an in-state vehicle must have this proof. everything else goes in function of that.

... and a seized vehicle under any circumstance is releasable to its owner or secured party, and can always be towed out of the yard.

Sure it can. Once you show proof of insurance and a valid driver's license you can recover the vehicle.

wrong. any property is recoverable from any tow yard upon payment of any due amounts. some yards wont let you drive out without proof of insurance and license but there probably just as confused as you are about when and how thats required. it very unfortunate that you people have created a racketeering industry requiring constant lawsuits just to keep your property from a falsely legal theft.

The Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, in Transportation Code §601.051, states that a person may not operate a motor vehicle in Texas unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle. Transportation Code §601.002(3) defines financial responsibility as the ability to respond to damages for liability for an accident that arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.

§ 601.051. REQUIREMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:
(1) a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that complies with Subchapter D;
(2) a surety bond filed under Section 601.121;
(3) a deposit under Section 601.122;
(4) a deposit under Section 601.123; or
(5) self-insurance under Section 601.124.

Note also that there is no reference to where the person lives or came from. If you come from somewhere else and drive in Texas without evidence of insurance that covers your use of the vehicle you'll quickly find yourself on foot because you can't get insurance without a license.

it has nothing to do with the driver, it has to do wth the vehicle. i'm not going to research the Texas code just now (but I will!) but every other one I have looked at specifies, maybe in a different section, that insurance is required of "vehicles registered under this title"- not foreign vehicles or any other conveyance. thats the same system that exists in every country.

When I do research that texas code, i'm quite sure i'll find all those modes of insurance as pertaining to the ways a state vehicle can be acceptable insured. just like with foreign motorists, there is no way to show or verify what is "insurance" in another jurisdiction, without a treaty. i'm sure when mexican vehicles cross the border as they do all the time, and certainly Venezualan ones, do not have verifiable insurance.

Now some countries will require a special sticker for foreign cars, I dont know that this system exists in any of the States yet. But again the actual penalized requirement itself only falls by statute on local issues.

you have to have proof of financial responsibility. If it's not an insurance policy you can post a bond. If you don't care about what damage might occur to your car you don't have to insure it at all.

See the problem here is your dealing with someone who can read, and is willing to do it. You wont put any of this nonsense over me, because after experiencing enough already I wised up and actually bothered to check for myself. The truth is stranger than fiction.

so if you bother to check the clause on "proof of financial responsibility for non-residents", you'll find a very different answer. First, proof is only required AFTER an accident has occured of at least (usually its) $1000. Then , that proof is only a bond from your "local insurance company" which in the case of nonusa/canada vehicles, could be anything. and finally, this "requirement" for proof is accompanied by no sanction as far as I know, there may be some reason that urges compliance.

Insurance responsibility goes with the flag of the vehicle period. And the actual liability falls first on the owner, and only the driver in secondary function of that first person. Who is the owner? How about a "vehicle" with no title at all? when the police run the VIN and nothing comes up, theres no way to say what exactly was required, because the answer is nothing. There are no laws on the books regulating the mere motoring of a wagon on the public ways. Jurisdiction always occurs by attachment becasue it is a PASSIVE SUBJECT, not a direct object. IT IS NOT A THING.

I dont doubt that Texas is a corrupt state like any other. there are better places to visit.

[Farmer Giles]

Texas:

White v. State
2004 WL 1351420
Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.],2004.
June 17, 2004 (Approx. 6 pages)

Vaughan v. State
2002 WL 1380382
Tex.App.-Corpus Christi,2002.
June 27, 2002 (Approx. 2 pages)

Naff v. State
946 S.W.2d 529
Tex.App.-Fort Worth,1997.
May 15, 1997 (Approx. 6 pages)


Took 5 minutes to locate these Texas cases.

the three points he argued were inane and offbase. its the typical fake court case that is used to muddy the waters. stick to the statutes.

[Farmer Giles]

If you spend most of the year within the borders of one of the fifty states, then you are a resident of that state and the non-resident exemptions in the motor vehicle code for that state DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

wrong. "a driver who is resident in two or more states shall choose one for vehicle purposes. straight out of the PAVC. And that only applies to States, which are defined as "states of the union or canadian provinces". If I'm NOT RESIDENT AT ALL that means I dont have a recognized DL so I must be under the nonresident exception if I qualify. No one here has yet defined how that qualification works because you never understood it and dont know the answer from refusal to think. So again look at how it works for EVERY OTHER NON DRIVER LICENSE CASE out there, starting with EVERYONE from India Africa all of Asia Europe and Latin America.

Now prove I "spend most of time" anywhere. Bulls*hit. Its a meaningless statement. It doesnt rise and fall on wondering by the side of a road in fifteen minutes or less.

If you have to say "if", then its speculation and there is no case. Want to know where I fall, whats my status? Check the corresponding registry. If there isnt one then what are looking for? To stare at bits of plastic? A DL or any other valid ID is a link between the holder and the record. A DL IS NOT WHAT IS IN YOUR WALLET. THATS A 'CARD'.

[Farmer Giles]

Cr*p like that certainly won't fly here in the Golden State.

BTW - why does it seem that the folks most that espouse the belief that they do not need a license or registration, or insurance, or plates seem to be at the very bottom rung of life's ladder?

I mean c'mon people, snap out of it. If there was ANY validity to these spurious "I don't have to have a license/plates/registration" people who pay a lot more in licensing and registration would have already used it, for all of about 3 months until governments closed such a loophole. Because people with real money, real businesses and real costs associated with operating fleets of vehicles have never, EVER gone this route, and these are people and companies that can hire lawyers by the dozens, one must logically conclude that any argument to the contrary is bullsh*t - and the parvenue of the willfully stupid.

no, its just that everything you do is a waste of time. you think you're successful, or wish you were, and your head is so far up a dark dark place that you have to practice 'cognitive dissonance' to get by, besides take a bunch of the wrong drugs.

[The Operative]

If you spend most of the year within the borders of one of the fifty states, then you are a resident of that state and the non-resident exemptions in the motor vehicle code for that state DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

wrong. "a driver who is resident in two or more states shall choose one for vehicle purposes. straight out of the PAVC. And that only applies to States, which are defined as "states of the union or canadian provinces". If I'm NOT RESIDENT AT ALL that means I dont have a recognized DL so I must be under the nonresident exception if I qualify. No one here has yet defined how that qualification works because you never understood it and dont know the answer from refusal to think. So again look at how it works for EVERY OTHER NON DRIVER LICENSE CASE out there, starting with EVERYONE from India Africa all of Asia Europe and Latin America.

Now prove I "spend most of time" anywhere. Bulls*hit. Its a meaningless statement. It doesnt rise and fall on wondering by the side of a road in fifteen minutes or less.

If you have to say "if", then its speculation and there is no case. Want to know where I fall, whats my status? Check the corresponding registry. If there isnt one then what are looking for? To stare at bits of plastic? A DL or any other valid ID is a link between the holder and the record. A DL IS NOT WHAT IS IN YOUR WALLET. THATS A 'CARD'.

More NONSENSE. Do you live in a house or apartment that is within the borders of a one of the fifty states? If you do, then you are a resident. As a resident, in order to be a driver, you must have a license issued in accordance to the laws of that state or be one of the very limited exceptions provided under the law. In order to be a driver within the state in which you live, the various NON-RESIDENT exemptions DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

BTW, your previous declaration that you are not a driver but a motorist is complete BULLSH*T. Under the law, a driver is any person who is in physical control of a motor vehicle. A car meets the definition of motor vehicle under the law. When you get in a car, start the engine, and put it in gear, you are driving. When you are driving that car in the same state that you live permanently, you are required by that state's laws to obtain a driver's license from that state.

[David Merrill]

I have heard of people posting my Bill of Exchange for proof of financial responsibility. I have not heard of any of them causing an accident though.

A woman has a Certificate of Search on her true name and her car's VIN, make and model. She went in to get her new registration stickers and they asked if she had insurance. She told them, No. They asked her if she drove her car to the office? She said, Yes. It is parked outside. The security guard asked her to come into a side office where she was informed she was under arrest for driving with no insurance based on her confession.

She showed them her Certificate of Search on her car and they had a meeting in the other room. They gave it back and gave her the new stickers.

Somebody told me this second-hand (rumor). Somebody sent the Registration/Tax Receipt in declaring no value, paying only the registration fee, and citing Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C §411. They got their new stickers without delay.



This one was fun! It took them 14 months, but they gave him his car back! They are like the Quatlosers here, it takes them a while. I suppose it was something in the papers, they kept trying to put it on the auction block and the process kept exposing them as thieves.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Farmer Giles]

Under the law, a driver is any person who is in physical control of a motor vehicle.

prove it or get off the thread. cite any vehicle code from one of the 50 states that makes this statement.

[Farmer Giles]

they asked if she had insurance. She told them, No. They asked her if she drove her car to the office? She said, Yes. It is parked outside. The security guard asked her to come into a side office where she was informed she was under arrest for driving with no insurance based on her confession.

so now a person with no power of arrest in the scope of any employment threaten to detain over an imagined misdemeanor that didnt occur in his presence? must have got his training at Quatloos, or some law school, or maybe accounting class at the local comunity college, where the many-headed can be found with many opinions.

This one was fun! It took them 14 months, but they gave him his car back! They are like the Quatlosers here, it takes them a while. I suppose it was something in the papers, they kept trying to put it on the auction block and the process kept exposing them as thieves.

and it only took 14 months... I hope he recovered some damages.

[The Operative]

Under the law, a driver is any person who is in physical control of a motor vehicle.

prove it or get off the thread. cite any vehicle code from one of the 50 states that makes this statement.

I knew that you would be dumb enough to dare me to prove it.

From the Illinois Statutes...

(625 ILCS 5/1‑115.
Sec. 1‑115.8. Drive. To drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.
(Source: P.A. 90‑89, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

(625 ILCS 5/1‑116) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1‑116)
Sec. 1‑116. Driver.
Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
(Source: P.A. 76‑1586.)

From the New Hampshire Statutes...

259:24 Drive. – ""Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.

Source. 1981, 146:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. 2005, 210:38, eff. July 1, 2006.
259:25 Driver. – ""Driver'' shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile.

Source. 1981, 146:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. 2005, 210:38, eff. July 1, 2006.

From the Colorado Revised Statutes...

(27) "Driver" means every person, including a minor driver under the age of twenty-one years, who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

Do I have to show you more?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Do I have to show you more?

You're assuming he would be able to comprehend it.

Time to shut this long walk on a short pier down.