Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
I guess what I propose goes more towards expressing intent in a way that would be more convincing to LEOs while on the side of the road. The officer ignored AJ's true name signature. But what if it was clearly stated on the DL that it is not to be used to identify the man that surrenders the DL. And what if a copy of the amended agreement is presented to the LEO. Perhaps things would be more likely to be handled at the roadside instead of in someone's brick-and-mortar courtroom. In other words, "Allright, I'm just going to issue a warning. Have a nice day!"
In practicality there is not enough room for much verbiage. In Colorado - at least around Colorado Springs suitors were signing:


Fairly quickly, after a few verbal skirmishes but with success the DoR swapped out the digital pads with much smaller ones. That is when we went to True Name signatures. Another thing now is that you wait for at least ten days and receive the new license card by mail. I suspect "non-assumpsit" and "without prejudice" are signature add-ons of the past. Likely you will not get your card at all until you correct the signature.

What I keep kicking myself about is that several months ago I received an email with a state statute that clearly said that the Driver License was not to be used for Identification Purposes! I don't recall saving it, and I have tried several times to find it and cannot. My memory is really good and I recall just letting it get by because of a priority-shift. Maybe a mood; I just thought, Every state has probably got a clause like this in the statutes and didn't bother saving it...