DMV Employee Refuses Signature

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I know of no court case that suggests that you can use an unconventional signature for a DL when the DMV clearly does not approve of it.

Can you/will you cease and desist citing court cases, or alleged court cases, prior to the requisite citation of the specific lawfully enacted legislative Act (not the prima facie presumption thereof) from which the alleged judicial action, which offers the mere opinion of a human being in a cassock re-presenting the BAR association, is allegedly predicated upon, and thus issues?

If not, specifically, why not?

How, precisely, are these opinions other than irrellevant presumptions, backed only by armed municipal mercenaries the BAR employs in their unlawful, private, closed shop, monopolistic, for-profit brothels, and your citations (or mere references to alleged opinions) but meaningless presumptions absent any meaningful address to the priority of direct quotation and links to certifiable resources of specific lawfully enacted non-codified legislative Act upon which the issue of such opinion is allegedly predicated?

Can you/will you please refrain from the deceit of putting the cart before the horse?

If not, specifically, why not?

It is tiresome, devious, and deceptive.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Ice

My "conventional" signature always consists of reserving my rights. Do you believe I should change my signature because some 'public servant' won't accept the way I normally sign such things? That's BS. They either accept my signature (because it is my signature) or they don't.

And it is not a "contract". It is a "waiver" of rights.

Ice

Thanks ICE. However, I was under the impression that since the State of California is a municipal Corporation, that they had to adhere to the UCC. I agree fully that this is a waiver of rights when we are forced to sign the driver's license, but I thought it was an agreement or contract with the State.

Shoonra, I am suprised that you are unfamiliar with this issue. I have seen numerous posts citing court cases where members of this forum have used their driver's licenses signed either "under duress" or "without predjudice" to aide them in court. Also, most of these posts are success stories. Please elaborate on your comment so that we may better understand what your source of information is.

Thanks to all!

[Codee]

In a limited form of governmnet the DMV must have a statute or rule allowing the refusal. Ask to see it.

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

My brother's wife went to the DMV with the intent of obtaining a new driver's license - for the purpose of identification only. When she attempted to sign "All rights reserved, under duress" and then her signature, the DMV employee told her that was not her signature and that it had to be JOE K. BLOW and nothing else. Not knowing what to do, she reluctantly signed.

The UCC does not have a definition of "legal signature", instead it defines does not define a legal signature. Instead, it defines a signature on a negotiable instrument as “any name, word, mark or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document.” It further states that a signature may be handwritten, typed, printed or made in any other manner, and that a signature could appear in the body of an instrument rather than on a signature line [UCC 1-201(30)].

Understanding that the DMV is only requiring a signature on a negotiable instrument, since you are actually signing a contract, you may write whatever is necessary to authenticate the document.

Personally, if it had been me applying, I would have attempted to cite the UCC and see where I got. I'm almost certain that would get no where since the government employees behind the counter don't know about the UCC and don't care. They have the power and they will continue to exercise it, especially if you argue with them. With that in mind I probably would have walked away and made a new appointment with some one else.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Ice

My "conventional" signature always consists of reserving my rights. Do you believe I should change my signature because some 'public servant' won't accept the way I normally sign such things? That's BS. They either accept my signature (because it is my signature) or they don't.

And it is not a "contract". It is a "waiver" of rights.

Ice

A few more comments.

1. Almost all state's licensing and motor vehicle laws were first enacted as laws regulating commerce (as a part of legislation regulating railroads). I bring this up because I believe the two biggest clauses of the Constitution the government has exploited to their advantage is their ability to regulate commerce and our right to contract.

2. The application for a driver's license contains all the key elements of a contract:
- Mutual Assent
- Consideration and capacity to perform
- Offer and Acceptance

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Ice

Very simple to handle this one... go to another BMV site.
Instead of all that writing... simply put UTDC and then sign your name OVER IT.

Ice

Is the capitalized abbreviation, UTDC, a lawfully sufficient notice?

Does one firt print UTDC on the signature line, and then autograph on top of what was juct printed?

Sorry for the questions, but I did not understand about the signing "over" UTDC, and was wondering about the validity in law of the abbreviation UTDC.

If the abbreviation is lawfully valid notice, is ARR likewise?

Also, I will demand to sign only in wet blue ink, and in Illinois, there seems to be a problem when one does this.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

Can you/will you cease and desist citing court cases, or alleged court cases, prior to the requisite citation of the specific lawfully enacted legislative Act (not the prima facie presumption thereof) from which the alleged judicial action, which offers the mere opinion of a human being in a cassock re-presenting the BAR association, is allegedly predicated upon, and thus issues?

If not, specifically, why not?

How, precisely, are these opinions other than irrellevant presumptions, backed only by armed municipal mercenaries the BAR employs in their unlawful, private, closed shop, monopolistic, for-profit brothels, and your citations (or mere references to alleged opinions) but meaningless presumptions absent any meaningful address to the priority of direct quotation and links to certifiable resources of specific lawfully enacted non-codified legislative Act upon which the issue of such opinion is allegedly predicated?

Can you/will you please refrain from the deceit of putting the cart before the horse?

If not, specifically, why not?

It is tiresome, devious, and deceptive.

If all someone knows and understands is code, court cases and cites while understanding little or nothing of the rights each of us are born with, how can any comment be outside the scope of the former?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Thanks ICE.

However, I was under the impression that since the State of California is a municipal Corporation, that they had to adhere to the UCC.

I agree fully that this is a waiver of rights when we are forced to sign the driver's license, but I thought it was an agreement or contract with the State.

Thanks to all!

STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

Does not the tendering of a fee in aquiescence to the compelled signing of an application, and submitting to registration not amount to a negotiation in commerce and an exchange of negotiable instrument, commercial paper, for the "benefit" of a "license," for which an unalienable right has unconstitutionally been converted into a privilege?

When funds are exchanged in discharge of debt allegedly incurred in the process of obtaining "goods and/or services" is this not a transaction in commerce?

What you said sounds correct to me.

[Ice]

Do you or do you not have the "right" to travel freely in your personal conveyance?

Do you or do you not "waive" that "right" by application for a license?

It's very simple. What you perceive to be a "contract" is nothing more than a waiver of a right. Remember, the rules can be changed by the will of only one party. And since you have waived your right you are bound by those changes.

If it were a contract then it would be "void for vagueness"... or lack of full disclosure, but that isn't the case here.

Ice

[Big Al]

"Does not the tendering of a fee in acquiescence to the compelled signing of an application, and submitting to registration not amount to a negotiation in commerce and an exchange of negotiable instrument, commercial paper, for the "benefit" of a "license," for which an unalienable right has unconstitutionally been converted into a privilege?"

Which part of "unalienable" do you not understand?

This is the one word that the meaning of which needs to be burned into the vary center of your soul! Forget it, and it's welcome to slavery.

Make the meaning of this word your gold standard. If it does not meet this standard, it's a lie, avoid it at all cost no matter how the idea sounds, or seems to fit your ideas of how you think things work.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Ice

Do you or do you not have the "right" to travel freely in your personal conveyance?

Do you or do you not "waive" that "right" by application for a license?

It's very simple. What you perceive to be a "contract" is nothing more than a waiver of a right. Remember, the rules can be changed by the will of only one party. And since you have waived your right you are bound by those changes.

If it were a contract then it would be "void for vagueness"... or lack of full disclosure, but that isn't the case here.

Ice

I'm with you 100% that you have the right to travel freely ICE. The point I'm making is that you are entering into the commercial sphere by completing the application process and wavering your right(s) as you previously mentioned.

On all DL applications (all that I can remember signing in the past anyways), it has some section referring to following the rules of the road or rules, regulations and statutes and other such items by reference that could not be included on a one or two page application. So I'm not sure how a void for vagueness argument applies.