That's a legal document!

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Post Reply
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:00 pm

That's a legal document!

Post by cobra2411 »

I carry a driver's license under duress to protect myself from the extreme harassment associated with not having one. When I renewed my license I tried to list UCC 1-308 All Rights Reserved along with my signature. The clerk was PO'd... "Sir! You can't put anything you want on your license, this is a legal document!"

I tried to explain, then I used the initials U. D. after my signature and once more the clerk barked "It's a legal document!" I explained that I was indicating I was signing under duress because she was trying to control how I signed a legal document.

"That's a legal document!"

Sadly I was left with the option of being thrown out or signing as they wished... Since I have an affidavit filed at the courthouse refuting any implied contracts and asserting my rights to common law, along with my explanation of carrying a license under duress I signed and went about my way...

Give the uneducated a little authority and they become very useful idiots for the state...

Just thought I'd share... BTW, I'm from the tax zone known as Pennsylvania... :)
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: That's a legal document!

Post by editor »

I've often signed documents with some sort of qualifier. I always put it before my signature, never after. Options I've seen over the years:
  • Under duress
  • T.D.C. (which stands for "threat, duress, and coercion")
  • All Rights Reserved, UCC 1-308
  • No contract
  • No agreement

    And my own favorite:
  • Non assumpsit (Latin for "no agreement")
I would never sign a document with such a qualifier if it was a voluntary contract I expect to honor. These qualifiers should be used with documents you feel compelled to sign to avoid unlawful harassment. Most or even all of them are unilateral, which means only one person signs-- the other party to the contract doesn't sign.

Such documents are usually presented by ignorant clerks who are just going through the motions, and don't know a thing about what they're doing. Many times I've been asked, "What does this mean?"

I reply, "Oh, it qualifies my signature," as I smile in a friendly manner, and nod my head.

They usually just smile back and say, "Okay!" I'm presuming most of them got low grades in high school English, and they thought I meant I was adding quality to my signature.

If you have filed some sort of public character statement with your county clerk, and if that statement declares you will not surrender your rights in any agreements such as a driver license, it would still be a good idea to add something like "Subject to XYZ county Clerk doc #[book]-[page]."

If they flat-out won't let you qualify your signature, I suggest this:

Tell the clerk you have made multiple attempts to tell her exactly what you agree to, and what you don't, so you're telling her right now that when you sign this, your agreement is limited to...[xyz].

Then, within 24 hours, follow up afterward by mailing them a written notice containing the substance of your interaction with the clerk, and making it clear as to the limitations of your signature. Be sure to point out that the clerk was well aware of what you agreed and what you did not at the time she accepted the document.
User avatar
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: That's a legal document!

Post by notmartha »

T.D.C as middle initials usually doesn't raise any eyebrows. If so, "it's just part of my signature." Or, just enclose signature in brackets i.e. [John Smith] . If clerk still refuses, make him/her give it to you in writing as to where/when/why they refused to accept your application for driver's license. Carry that letter with you. You can't be required to do the impossible.
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: That's a legal document!

Post by bluddysnoman »

i don't understand your argument about this signature and I think you are in error.

Look I am like minded just so we all know, so bear with me.

in Texas where I live there is a requirement to have a fishing license (of course this is commercial too but for the sake of clarification...follow a logical path) to fish the waters of texas

If I possess a fishing license which restricts my activities for fishing the Waters of Texas and I go into the local market's and go to the fish counter and buy 30 catfish, leave, and as I am driving out of the parking lot a game warden pulls me over and request to see my fishing license and writes me a ticket based on that license for having more than my daily limit of catfish the warden has now acted outside of his jurisdictional authority to enforce any laws pertaining to that license. Since I was not engaged in a regulable activity of fishing on the texas waters, I have every right to challenge the jurisdiction that the court is presuming for this instant matter and if the judge honors his oath there is no way he cannot see the truth and must see there is no jurisdiction on this case and then dismiss it.

Why put yourself in jeopardy voluntarily (consent) going into their domain and getting a license while simultaneously trying to invalidate (tamper with) their document?

You would have a much better defense standing on your fundamental rights. Invoke, protect, and defend your rights and waive none of them.

So you got a license, what's the big deal? If you are not engaged in a regulated activity related to the license, commercial traffic in this case, invoke your rights and don't give it to them.

Giving a license to them altered is a consensual giving of a tampered with government document, so it's like asking for getting hit with the book by the judge. I mean, do what you want because it's your liberty at stake but that is a dangerous game with dangerous people. You cannot educate a cop on the side of the road. And your defense is that there is no jurisdiction. There is nothing else.

Also, the UCC has nothing to do with these people because they are not making an accusation under commercial law or maritime law. So I fail to see how that has anything to do with this argument. I mean I see what you are trying to do, I just have never understood trying to put a square block in a round hole. That's two different things.

Anyway, I love discussing this so I am glad I found this forum and I do not mean to be condescending. This is a great topic of discussion and I wish you the best and if we can all put our heads together and put these servants back in their place..serving their masters rather than prosecuting us, we all will be better off.

Have a nice day.
Post Reply