How can a calif drivers license that's been expired for 13 years possess any functioning attributes such as " suspended"? Dmv hasn't redefined the term 'expired' in the vehicle code glossary, nor is there a discription of the environment beyond the expiration date of the license?
???dmv
- Thread Starter k557965
- Start date
- Status
mightymoose
Moderator
Was it suspended prior to being expired? It may hold that status so that you right whatever wrong had occurred prior to being issued a new license.
This question will best be answered by the DMV. They can tell you why the license shows as suspended and start you in the right direction to correct it.
This question will best be answered by the DMV. They can tell you why the license shows as suspended and start you in the right direction to correct it.
disagreeable
Well-Known Member
The license does not possess the attribute. The right to possess the license does.
It was suspended prior to expiring. The original beef was a DUI I did jailtime, Community service, and paid satisfied all the courts requirements. By that time in my life I had decided that driving for me was better not done until I could get a handle on the problem.
So I made a conscious decision NOT to drive! Now understand that DMV wants the public to know that driving is a privelidge. Well that being the case, it makes that organization no different than Disneyland, or a 2 week Hawaiin Cruise line, or even a fancy chinese restaurant for that matter, so taking the driving school ( couldn't afford it moneywise or missing workwise! ) was only necessary if I had opted to persue the Luxery of driving again. There were a lot of documents to sign promising the court that I would do certain things. Taking that class among them. There were NO documents saying that I may NOT opt out of driving under any circumstances!
Furthermore contracts law quite distintly defines concepts such as time dated material and permissions granted by carried documents as well as the environment beyond the expiration date that governs that document.
The has NOT redifined the term 'expired' for the glossary they took the time to create as necessary by contracts law, nor did they describe the environment beyond that expiration date.
That license was expired for 13 years! The day it was suspended until it's expiration date the suspension was valid until midnight of that date! The very next day the license ceased to exist as did the suspension status. If they wanted me to have a suspended license then they had no choice but to wait for me to come in, apply, pass the tests, and pay the fees. With those things properly done, then and only then, does the management staff of an organization of " Privelidge " have the right to grant me that license and then immediately suspend it! Except in the case of unbridled domination of the masses and make it up as you go lawmaking!
Going to DMV to get honest answers about why they can behave against everything legal procedure requires of everything and everyone else is pointless! They get mad at you! Just like the police got mad at me when I asked them if impounding my car was a punishment. They said no! Well fine, if the car was legally owned, properly registered, insured to the teeth, not an eyesore or a health hazard then what statute gave them the right to forcibly remove private property from a legitimate card carrying citizen of the United States. Please tell me that! They couldn't! What they did do was get really mad and not because I was antogonist either, oh no, I made a point of being so humble, and grateful for the time that they spend helping me to understand what was happening to me! They were thanked in advance, smiled at, even complimented! It was a tactic to insure that I was not the cause of any undue distress as a result of my questions! And that knowledge came from asking DMV how an expired document could still maintain a suspended attribute when it hasn't existed for over 13 years, and the privelidge of getting to watch them get mad.
I want to know if DMV has to abide by laws and what are they! The police aren't interested in helping and neither is DMV, and both treat you like like you're filth for even asking!
This website says you're pretty good! So can you give me an explanation that is actually grounded in something tangible?
I know that an answer to this is gonna represent work, so please accept my gratitude in advance for whatever, if any, time you spend on it, and if you can't that's OK too, you're still appreciated for what has already transpired!
Sincerely, K557965
So I made a conscious decision NOT to drive! Now understand that DMV wants the public to know that driving is a privelidge. Well that being the case, it makes that organization no different than Disneyland, or a 2 week Hawaiin Cruise line, or even a fancy chinese restaurant for that matter, so taking the driving school ( couldn't afford it moneywise or missing workwise! ) was only necessary if I had opted to persue the Luxery of driving again. There were a lot of documents to sign promising the court that I would do certain things. Taking that class among them. There were NO documents saying that I may NOT opt out of driving under any circumstances!
Furthermore contracts law quite distintly defines concepts such as time dated material and permissions granted by carried documents as well as the environment beyond the expiration date that governs that document.
The has NOT redifined the term 'expired' for the glossary they took the time to create as necessary by contracts law, nor did they describe the environment beyond that expiration date.
That license was expired for 13 years! The day it was suspended until it's expiration date the suspension was valid until midnight of that date! The very next day the license ceased to exist as did the suspension status. If they wanted me to have a suspended license then they had no choice but to wait for me to come in, apply, pass the tests, and pay the fees. With those things properly done, then and only then, does the management staff of an organization of " Privelidge " have the right to grant me that license and then immediately suspend it! Except in the case of unbridled domination of the masses and make it up as you go lawmaking!
Going to DMV to get honest answers about why they can behave against everything legal procedure requires of everything and everyone else is pointless! They get mad at you! Just like the police got mad at me when I asked them if impounding my car was a punishment. They said no! Well fine, if the car was legally owned, properly registered, insured to the teeth, not an eyesore or a health hazard then what statute gave them the right to forcibly remove private property from a legitimate card carrying citizen of the United States. Please tell me that! They couldn't! What they did do was get really mad and not because I was antogonist either, oh no, I made a point of being so humble, and grateful for the time that they spend helping me to understand what was happening to me! They were thanked in advance, smiled at, even complimented! It was a tactic to insure that I was not the cause of any undue distress as a result of my questions! And that knowledge came from asking DMV how an expired document could still maintain a suspended attribute when it hasn't existed for over 13 years, and the privelidge of getting to watch them get mad.
I want to know if DMV has to abide by laws and what are they! The police aren't interested in helping and neither is DMV, and both treat you like like you're filth for even asking!
This website says you're pretty good! So can you give me an explanation that is actually grounded in something tangible?
I know that an answer to this is gonna represent work, so please accept my gratitude in advance for whatever, if any, time you spend on it, and if you can't that's OK too, you're still appreciated for what has already transpired!
Sincerely, K557965
army judge
Super Moderator
Your argument is founded under criminal law and general contract law.
But, you're dealing with an administrative body, the DMV.
Before I continue, where does the government obtain the right to freak search you, sexually molest you for trying to take the seat you purchased on an airplane?
Now, before someone spouts off about "protecting the public", why isn't the same "protection" provided for a seat in a taxi cab or a city bus?
No answer required, these various administrative bodies, regulatory agency, etc... are allowed to skirt "due process" and other fundamental constitutional rights. The issue of a drivers license being a privilege aside. Yes, you make a good argument about the impoundment of your vehicle, subsequent to your arrest for allegedly driving under the influence.
Notice I used "allegedly", because at the time of your arrest, it was merely an allegation. Your property was confiscated and secreted subsequent to your arrest for an alleged offense. Think if you had been alleged to have owed delinquent parking fines, and your car was booted and subsequently impounded for alleged violations.
The problem here, OP, is the law is clear. But, government is a revenue machine. It must be fed. It confiscates your wealth to feed and sustain itself, while claiming it does so for the good of society.
Kings, Emperors, and other royals were not as oppressive as democratic and republic forms of government deny themselves to be. Need I even mention income taxes, sales taxes, and fees to use "public" facilities? They are the government, they can do no wrong. They decide if they've committed crimes or transgressions against you. Do you believe they'll judge themselves fairly, in matters that would deny them their power over you?
Bottom line, there is no argument you could make that will ever allow you to win certain suits against the all powerful Wizard of US. Even though yoyr argument is founded in their law, you won't beat them in their court.
But, you're dealing with an administrative body, the DMV.
Before I continue, where does the government obtain the right to freak search you, sexually molest you for trying to take the seat you purchased on an airplane?
Now, before someone spouts off about "protecting the public", why isn't the same "protection" provided for a seat in a taxi cab or a city bus?
No answer required, these various administrative bodies, regulatory agency, etc... are allowed to skirt "due process" and other fundamental constitutional rights. The issue of a drivers license being a privilege aside. Yes, you make a good argument about the impoundment of your vehicle, subsequent to your arrest for allegedly driving under the influence.
Notice I used "allegedly", because at the time of your arrest, it was merely an allegation. Your property was confiscated and secreted subsequent to your arrest for an alleged offense. Think if you had been alleged to have owed delinquent parking fines, and your car was booted and subsequently impounded for alleged violations.
The problem here, OP, is the law is clear. But, government is a revenue machine. It must be fed. It confiscates your wealth to feed and sustain itself, while claiming it does so for the good of society.
Kings, Emperors, and other royals were not as oppressive as democratic and republic forms of government deny themselves to be. Need I even mention income taxes, sales taxes, and fees to use "public" facilities? They are the government, they can do no wrong. They decide if they've committed crimes or transgressions against you. Do you believe they'll judge themselves fairly, in matters that would deny them their power over you?
Bottom line, there is no argument you could make that will ever allow you to win certain suits against the all powerful Wizard of US. Even though yoyr argument is founded in their law, you won't beat them in their court.
mightymoose
Moderator
People who have never even been issued a valid driver's license can also have a suspended/revoked status. Upon their DUI arrest, or other offense, the DMV assigns them a number and suspends/revokes the status. This status remains until the conditions are met that allows for it to be reinstated.
In your case it seems when you opted to no longer drive you failed to complete one of the necessary steps toward reinstatement. You were likely required at some point, within a certain time frame, to provide evidence to DMV that you had completed those steps. Since you stopped driving and didn't provide the DMV any proof, the status remains.
This prevents you from obtaining a new license after expiration and circumventing the requirements of the suspension.
With your reasoning a person who receives a three year suspension today but has a license that expires tomorrow, can simply go back to the DMV in two days and get a brand new license free and clear since the other expired. The DMV is certainly run by fools, but they are smarter than that.
Also, your license is not at all a contract of any kind. It is nothing more than an identification card which shows certain permissions.
All you need to do is visit the DMV, ask about your suspended status, and learn what is required to have it reinstated. After 13 years it may be easier to reinstate than you might think.
In your case it seems when you opted to no longer drive you failed to complete one of the necessary steps toward reinstatement. You were likely required at some point, within a certain time frame, to provide evidence to DMV that you had completed those steps. Since you stopped driving and didn't provide the DMV any proof, the status remains.
This prevents you from obtaining a new license after expiration and circumventing the requirements of the suspension.
With your reasoning a person who receives a three year suspension today but has a license that expires tomorrow, can simply go back to the DMV in two days and get a brand new license free and clear since the other expired. The DMV is certainly run by fools, but they are smarter than that.
Also, your license is not at all a contract of any kind. It is nothing more than an identification card which shows certain permissions.
All you need to do is visit the DMV, ask about your suspended status, and learn what is required to have it reinstated. After 13 years it may be easier to reinstate than you might think.
disagreeable
Well-Known Member
As an aside AJ, parents used to teach their children the only person permitted to touch them in their was their doctor. Now they have added the TSA.
- Status
Ask a Question
Share this page
