Texas CDL class B

[Ron Thompson]

I agree with Wallace. Rule Chapter 522 follows 521 and corrects 521 since it is the latter ruling. wouldn't that make sense. I agree that a qualified Texas lawyer needs to rule on it. I have enough lawyer fees already or I would pay for one. Ron Thompson -Waller, Tx. 1995 WLWB 42' (cockyfox@...) --- On Fri, 4/3/09, Don Bradner wrote: From: Don Bradner Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 11:32 AM I do, as do others. You are a lone voice crying in the wilderness. If you succeed, all you will have accomplished is getting an organization to spend unnecessary money to find out what they already knew to be true. Don Bradner 90 PT40 "Blue Thunder" My location: http://www.bbirdmaps. com/user2. cfm?user= 1 On 4/3/2009 at 9:18 AM Wallace Craig wrote: >So you say. > > >Wallace Craig >95 WLWB 42 >Azle, Texas > >--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Don Bradner <"bluethunder%40arcatapet.com"> wrote: > > >From: Don Bradner <"bluethunder%40arcatapet.com"> >Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B >To: "WanderlodgeForum%40yahoogroups.com" >Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 11:12 AM > > >That's part of what makes it hard to understand why you would try to apply >a law beyond its scope. Some laws are difficult to understand. This one >isn't. > >On 4/3/2009 at 8:57 AM Wallace Craig wrote: > >>Of course I am sturbon, I am a trial lawyer retired after 45 years >>fighting insurance companies. I just hope FMCA steps up to the plate and >>pays for a legal opinion as I have asked them to do. >> >> >>Wallace Craig >>95 WLWB 42 >>Azle, Texas >> >>--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Don Bradner <"bluethunder%40arcatapet.com"> wrote: >> >> >>From: Don Bradner <"bluethunder%40arcatapet.com"> >>Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B >>To: "WanderlodgeForum%40yahoogroups.com" >>Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:50 AM >> >> >>D**n, you are stubborn! You take a clear and unambiguous statement and >>then apply it beyond its scope. >> >>522.004 states, clearly and unambiguously, that RVs are excluded from >>chapter 522. Period. That does not allow the statement to apply to chapter >>521 where a Class A or B (nothing about CDL) is required for any vehicle >>over 26K, and there is no RV exemption in that chapter. >> >>On 4/3/2009 at 8:06 AM Wallace Craig wrote: >> >>>It is with no particular satisfaction that my opinion remains unchanged; >>>the article about Texas CDL appearing in the current issue of Family >Motor >>>Coach is wrong. The exemption contained at TRC 522.004 statinng that >>>recreational vehicles areexcluded from CDL is clear and unambigious. I >>>have prevailed on the librarian at Tarrant County to run a sheppards >>>citator on the statute and she find no case law on the question and no >>>Attorney Generals opinion on the issue. She does agree with my position >>>that a CDL >>> >>> >>>Wallace Craig >>>95 WLWB 42 >>>Azle, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- --------- --------- -------- >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >----------- --------- --------- ------- > >Yahoo! Groups Links