Parking Tickets and the “Consent of the Governed” Part 3

May 6, 2009 by Ian
Filed under: Issues, Personal Freedom, Police, Update

Longtime readers of this blog may recall that springtime of last year my car was ticketed for an expired parking meter. I wrote a letter to the Keene PD expressing my willingness to pay the fine if they could show me the proof of the obligation they were alleging I have to follow their statutes and ordinances. Weeks later, Captain Kenneth Meola wrote me back this letter, claiming the ticket had been paid and citing a bunch of their laws, then claiming I have an obligation to obey without providing evidence as I requested. I let that letter go unanswered, as he claimed the matter had been paid, which I certainly did not do, and I’m not sure who did. Perhaps they just marked it paid, or perhaps some anonymous observer of this blog went and paid it for me. I did post the ticket number last time, so that’s a possibility.

Flash forward to April 14th when my lady Julia parked the car in the road out front of my house because our tenants were blocking her side of the garage. She forgot to move the car and left it overnight. In the morning she found a $15 parking citation had been left on the car for “NIGHT TIME PARKING”. Here in Keene, there is some ordinance that says no street parking after 1am between November 1st and May 1st. The reason for the ordinance is so plows can get down a street during snow nights. The dates are arbitrary, of course, and so even though there was no way accumulating snow was going to happen in the middle of April, the cops were out ticketing people.

I’d understand this if it were the middle of Winter, but it’s the middle of Spring. Since I am not a voluntary revenue source for the violent monopoly, I am resuming my discussion with Captain Meola. Posted below is the text of a NOTICE OF DISCUSSION I hand delivered to the Keene Police Department this afternoon. The lady behind the window did not look pleased when I asked her to give this to “officer Meola”, and she said back, “Captain Meola”. Of course, all of them are officers of the state, so my statement was accurate.

May 06, 2009
Kenneth Meola
KEENE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Division of Administrative Services
400 Marlboro Street
Keene, NH 03431-4336

Mr. Meola,

You wrote me over a year ago in reply to a letter I’d sent about a parking ticket. I didn’t bother to write back, as it appeared you had appropriately discharged the matter. Thank you for that.

I appreciate your attention to my notice last year. You seem to be sincere and I imagine your intentions are good. I’m sorry to say another of your agents is attempting to initiate conflict with me. As you may recall, I’m not interested in conflicting with you or your agency. I’m writing in response to a “First Notice” I received in regards to a parking citation, number XXXXXX.

I am a peaceful man and will do no harm. I honor my agreements, and to that end I would like to readdress a point that had been left unresolved in our last correspondence. In your last letter to me, you wrote the following:

I’m confused by your request for “evidence of the valid original contract with my signature binding me to said obligation”. While in the State of New Hampshire or City of Keene, you are bound to abide by the laws or ordinances regulating conduct, behavior, vehicle movement, etc… As noted above, the State grants this authority to the City to regulate as deemed appropriate. Common sense dictates that regardless of the State or Country you find yourself in, you’re obligated to abide by their laws without any contractual process taking place.

While what you have stated may be commonly believed, it is not sensible. To me, common sense would dictate that men and women who claim they are owed money for services rendered should show upon demand, the proof of their claim, particularly in the form of the signed instrument (contract) that binds them to the obligation that is being claimed. I believe the UCC (which is part of your organization’s own statutes) makes this pretty clear.
Aside from that, while I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I did not request your interpretation of common sense. Nor did I request you to cite to me your organization’s statutes. Neither of those things is a proof of obligation. You claim,

While in the State of New Hampshire or City of Keene, you are bound to abide by the laws or ordinances regulating conduct, behavior, vehicle movement, etc…

I have some questions about your claim:

Factually, what are the “State of New Hampshire” and the “City of Keene”?

What evidence do you have that I am in them?

By what method or instrument am I bound to your laws or ordinances?

How can I be bound to your statutes without my consent?

Also, in regards to this specific ticket, if you can answer those questions or prove my obligation, I’d also like to know the following:

It is my understanding that the rule you allege was broken has to do with keeping the streets clear for plows. Were it actually anywhere close to a time when an overnight accumulation of snow was possible, as opposed to April 14th, the date of issue of your citation, I could understand your position. It is not my intention to be a nuisance to my neighbors or to obstruct a legitimate process like clearing the streets. It seems that the enforcement of this rule in this case is either about collecting revenue, extracting mindless obedience, or both. Will you clarify your agency’s intentions in this matter?

If you would prefer to answer these questions in person, I know that there are many other people who would be very interested in hearing your responses and also engaging in this discussion. We could have a public discussion that would be recorded on video and distributed for the world to see. If you’d like to take that route, I leave that choice in your hands.

Also in your hands is your choice of how to respond. Will you continue to attempt to initiate conflict with me or will you do the honorable thing and discharge this matter?

Of course, you’re also still welcome to prove your claim that I am bound to obey the arbitrary dictates of the people calling themselves the city council or the state legislature. If you can prove your claim of my obligation I’ll happily pay your fine. Feel free to pass this up the chain as necessary, so I can actually get some answers. Citing more of your rules will be deemed as non-responsive.

Please note that any correspondence is subject to being posted on the blog at FreeKeene.com

Sincerely and with a full reservation of rights,

More as it develops here at FreeKeene.com.

http://www.freemindsmedia.org Toby

It really must suck to be this bureaucrat. I don't think they're used to these types of questions. Brilliant!
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

I spend a fair amount of time visiting family in Ottawa, the second coldest national capital in the world. It snows nearly every day in winter, and people routinely park on the street, even in cities like Ottawa and Montreal. You only have to move your car when they are going to remove the snow, and then they put signs out the day before.

So I do find all of our weather hysteria in NH to be amusing, and I would find it annoying if I lived in a place where on-street parking is the norm.

I think this is a chance for you guys to lead an effort and help your friends and neighbors. Instead of writing more snarky letters to the police, would you be willing to meet with the city council and the police and highway department and see if you can't come to agreement on a system where overnight parking is banned only if there is actual snow coming down. Somehow there would have to be a declaration of a snow emergency and some way of letting people know.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Ian, your third and fourth questions make sense to me, but could you expand upon the first two, especially the second? I do not understand the point you are making with these — he will likely define the state and city as geographic areas, and point out that the vehicle was in the area.

The real question to me, is, why is it this particular group of people claims the ability to dictate all behavior in an entire area, despite the fact that they do not own the land? Your second questions touch upon this — it sounds like a mob or gang mentality to me … they claim the right to rule over it the same way a gang claims to rule over a block — not because it was aquired legitimately, but because they have the guns.
http://mike.barskey.net Mike

I didn't find the letter snarky.

I think meeting with neighbors, and perhaps also with plowing companies' representatives, and mutually agreeing to better methods/systems would be a great thing. Even if the govt were involved, it would be a good step towards working together in a voluntary way (even while involving an aggressive agent: the govt). But if you work with the govt to arrange a better system, you're implicitly saying that the govt has legitimacy being involved, has legitimacy stealing taxes money to accomplish what the majority wants.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian

The answer is they are corporations, nothing more than imaginary concepts. If he answers they are plots of land, then how does my being on them constitute consent to being ruled? Does that also mean they own "my" property? Of course it does.

Will they ever admit they claim to own it all, including us? No way, so we get to watch them dance around the issue and attempt to keep up their aura of legitimacy.

Question two: If they are corporations, there is no evidence I am "in" them. If they are plots of land, it is obvious I am in them, so then I must know the answer to question three, how the obligation was created.
Land of atheos

If they answer it is the plot of land, great, you can then stand on their words of insanity when they say "City of keene" press charges, cause land can not do any such thing.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian

Good point, LoA.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

You probably actually own the land where your SO's car was parked. Most people living on city or town roads own the land in front of their properties up to the center line of the road.

The public has a viatic easement, essentially a right of way, to pass over your land.

The state claims to have the right to regulate the public usage of the easement over your property.

The state delegates that right to the city, which is a corporation chartered under the laws of the state.
Frake

Great letter, Ian!

I just read "Adventures in Legal Land", and this is perfect setup for the government people to fail at.

Almost everything the people calling themselves goverment write (laws, regulations, statutes, etc.) is meer opinion (including States, and Cities) according to their own statements, and according to their own statements (by 'they' I meant the supreme court members and other judicial decisions): to force a person to comform to the meer opinion of others is slavery. So, right there, they're stuck.

"The state claims to have the right to regulate the public usage of the easement over your property. The state delegates that right to the city, which is a corporation chartered under the laws of the state." <- But all of this is just the opinion of the people doing buisness as New Hampshire.

IT'S PRACTICALLY ALL OPINIONS!!!

The only time when laws are not based on opinions is when there is a real, living and breathing (hopefully ), quantifiably damaged victim. All other laws (nothing but opinions) are based on people breaking other opinions (regulations/statutes).

'It's unlawful to not believe in the Easter Bunny, except as necessary by those doing buisness as New Hampshire.'

This is how it breaks down to the core:

Do you equate [intiating threats of violence] with [fair and just]?
cyberdoo78

"Aside from that, while I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I did not request your interpretation of common sense. Nor did I request you to cite to me your organization’s statutes."

The way this is phrased may be mistaken as 'snarky'. Perhaps re-write as:

"I appreciate you taking the time to respond and to include your opinion of what your opinion of should be common sense, in the future, please refrain from stating opinions and stick to facts. I also appreciate your citing your organization's statutes to me, however since no proof has been offered that I am bound by these statues, it is rather irreverent at this time."

I can't figure out a better way to tell him politely to not to blather and stay on the issue. But this is what I suggest. I hope to hear more on this, because I love hearing about this.
Mikearchy

I'm just glad that I didn't read Ian's questions to the parasite while I was drinking milk. That would have been painful and difficult to clean up as I laughed hysterically at the office.

I can only imagine that the parasite's head started to spin in circles and spit pea soup everywhere in trying to formulate (let alone understand) an answer to the question.

M.
KDus

Excellent, if it actually gets read.

I don't claim to live in any state. I can only live "on" a state.

You asked for the leech to clarify ther intention. I suspect it is to enforce the law. You may be clouding the earlier points by getting into the purpose of the law, not just the issue of obligation.
Sean

This reminds me of the bs expired state inspection parking ticket I got while parked in front of my house in MY reserved parking spot. It is an illegal ticket as you cannot be ticketed for that in Virginia unless the car is witnessed in motion. They were just trying to get people to blindly pay. I ignored it and haven't heard anything in over a year.