VIDEO: State Representative Dick Marple OWNS District Court Judge

Dick Marple is a military veteran, former cop, and four-term state representative from Hooksett, New Hampshire.

In May of 2016, he was arrested on a warrant for driving with an invalid license and released on $4,000 personal recognizance.

He attended an arriagnment in June (video here) and challenged the court’s jurisdiction among other things, and then was arrested while campaigning on election day, November 9th. Police say he failed to appear at Concord District Court to answer to charges of driving while license suspended and “prohibitions” regarding an allegedly invalid license.

This week, Dick was back in court for a case status hearing, where he let the judge have it, in front of a full courtroom. Here’s the amazing video:

In addition to this court battle, Marple is also facing down the town of Hooksett regarding unpaid property taxes. He’s more than two years past due, and according to the Union Leader, the town government has already “tax deeded” (stolen) his property from him on paper. Now they have to decide to sell the property and throw him from the home that he thought that he owned.

Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest from Dick’s legal land odysseys. The suspended driving case is set for trial on January 23rd at 1pm at Concord District Court.

If you enjoy my posts, please sign up for a free account at Steemit, follow my posts there, and vote them up. If you do that, I’ll actually get paid in cryptocurrency for your vote-ups, thank you!

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


53 Comments

  1. Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you fight terrorist government in
    court. Good job to New Hampshire State Representative Richard “Dick” Marple for showing us how it’s done!

  2. Hilarious, they wanted you to stop filming because there were “other defendants and witnesses and victims”, but the prosecutor wasn’t there because there wasn’t any actual prosecution going on, so the bailiffs first statement was a lie.

  3. what a sham

  4. I see a pattern developing… the state ignoring due process and more of its victims getting fed up.  Kudos.

  5. Intrigare We’re trying to expose them for the criminals and terrorists they are. Fake due process in their kangaroo courts.

  6. MikeLorrey Originally I thought he was just wrong because every single person in that court room was there on charges that involved no victims. Then I realized he must have been talking about those who were charged with a crime because they undoubtedly are victims of the state.

  7. Hmm waiting for someone to tell us that this isn’t newsworthy, Ian lied, Mr. Marple is an imbecile, a criminal, and the Judge is going to rightfully throw the book at him and take everything he owns, etc.
    Where oh where is Jacks?  Milwaukee?  Late to the game are you?  I swear, you guys are about as useful as concrete parachutes sometimes.  I can’t stay mad at you though 🙂

  8. It’s not what the words say, it’s who gets to interpret what the words say –  Something Josef Stalin would have said

  9. First, You need be challenging “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” of the Court and nothing else.
    The court must then stop and another court must determine if the original court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court you are in CAN NOT determine its own Subject Matter Jurisdiction. there is a court case on that but I do not have it with me right now. Google Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

    You are absolutely right the court is a corporate court and can be found registered as such on Dunn&Bradstreet;, site name dnb.com, this is a site where all corporations are registered like Wal-Mart, Target and the Court you are in etc., 
    You need to get the IRS Form W9 for the court to find their real name, it will show their true name, address and Employer Identification number that you can look up in Dunn&Bradstreet.;

    Remember the STATE is an entity and can not write a complaint, can not testify in court because it can not speak and Prosecutor is forbidden by law to give testimony Google Trinsey v. Pagliaro, Attorneys/Prosecutors are not allowed to testify or admit evidence in court and remember anything and everything they say is testimony and must be objected to immediately. You must say “Objection Prosecutor is giving Testimony.” 
    Trinsey v. Pagliaro is the most quoted case to get our courses dismissed under 12(B)(6) use it against the STATE.

    Stop Prosecuting Attorneys Fast – Trinsey v. Pagliaro
    BY http://www.youarelaw.org/author/tjmarrsgmail-com/ · MARCH 3, 2016
    With Regards to Trinsey v. Pagliaro – a Major Key to Winning in THEIR Fictional Courts. Heresay vs facts in evidence.
    It’s a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL POWER of the State. Article XI. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    Attorneys are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION. Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People – Supreme Court of the United States 1795 “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 —– (Let’s not get all pissy over whether this is an exact quote, read the rest of the cites below)

  10. Part II

    And, “An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647) Subject: Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647: when you read it you will find that it is THE case cited for FRCivP 12(b) (6). Now, while what it says at 12(b) (6) is good, notice how I have highlighted some items from the actual decision, it goes 

    MUCH further than 12(b) (6) does and we should also.
    Keep in mind the two Maxims in Law that are opposite sides of the same coin: Truth is Expressed in the Form of an Affidavit, & An Unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in the Matter. Now, while keeping these in mind, think about when someone like an attorney for the IRS comes forward and “testifies” about how you did such-and-such. Are they a First-Hand-Witness, or simply a “Statement of Counsel in Brief or Argument?” Shut them down! Hit them with Trinsey and get the “Judge” to take official Judicial Notice of it. If the “Judge” does not sustain your object, you need to immediately file an oral “Affidavit of Prejudice” against the “Judge” as he has shown his prejudice and then file the same Affidavit in writing into the record with witnesses to the same. Once your Affidavits are filed, get a record of what has been filed and show that you are the only one who has actually introduced FACTS into the case and move for Summary Judgment upon the Facts… while reminding the “Judge” that the ONLY thing he is to consider is the FACTS of the case ON THE RECORD, that the opposing “counsel” has only been “enlightening” to the Court, but not sufficient to rise to the level of FACT.
    This applies both with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence…. there must be a competent first hand witness (a body). There has to be a real person making the complaint and bringing evidence before the court. Corporations are paper and can’t testify. “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752, “Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463. “No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2, “The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting. “Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. “Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h). Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.”

    Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest. “Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880 Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And, how many of those A$*s-Holes have “first hand knowledge”? NONE!!!]

    Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate. Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well.

  11. The Police, Courts are corporate in nature they are all Government Service providers registered on Dunn & Bradstreet dnb.com

    The Constitution was written as restrictions on the Government it dose not pertain to us we did not take an Oath to protect an defend the Constitution like the Government Service providers have.

    Again the State of New Hampshire can’t talk or write so it can’t charge any one with anything and Trinsey v. Pagliaro clearly states the prosecutor can not present evidence.

  12. The Police, Courts, the County are corporate in nature they are all Government Service providers registered on Dunn & Bradstreet dnb.com

    If there is no Complaint signed and sworn to by the complaining party (THE STATE) with the seal of the court and to signed by Clerk of Court, You might ask is the the judge to sign a statement under penalty of purjury that the Court lawful in sesson and is it lawfully convened.

    The Judge CAN NOT make a ruling on the Jurisdiction of the Court she is presiding over she is lying.

    The Constitution was written as restrictions on the Government it dose not pertain to us we did not take an Oath to protect an defend the Constitution like the Government Service providers have.

    Ask them How did the Court/Judge determine that their Constitution and the statutes, codes and laws derived there from apply to you just because you are physically present on the land.

    Again the State of New Hampshire can’t talk or write so it can’t charge any one with anything and Trinsey v. Pagliaro clearly states the prosecutor can not present evidence.

  13. The question to the Judge is this “Who are the Parties to this case and are both parties present here today?”

  14. Not a good video Ian. He made himself look like a fool. He was busted for driving on a suspended license.  Whether he wants to play the sovereign nation game or not. It is a crime. I don’t know how you think he “gave it to the judge” The judge explained everything and if he wants his motions heard, he has to file them.  The guy is another self entitled who chooses what laws he will follow, and which one’s he won’t follow.

    Ian playing the victim because he was told to shut off his camera. You don’t have the right to video everyone and everything in a court house.

  15. The State can never be a party to a criminal action because a criminal action presumes an injury of some kind and the State CAN NOT be injured.

  16. MikeLorrey No, it wasn’t a lie.  This was an arraignment. The prosecution already amended and gave the judge the charges. He doesn’t have to be there.

  17. Where in the State of New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Code does it state a Known legal Duty to have a Drivers License?

    I can’t find it, can any one?

  18. Sjg1 Only if you’re involved in commerce.

  19. Pretrial Questions to
    ask the judge and prosecuting attorney:
    1)Judge: Are
    you going to be Fair, Neutral, Detached, Impartial and Independent?
    2)Judge: Is
    this court lawfully convened and lawfully in session?
    If the complaint has not been filed and sworn to under oath
    or affirmation how can this court be lawfully convened and lawfully in session?
    3)Judge and
    Prosecutor: Are the true adversaries or parties to this action physically
    present in court here today?
    4)Judge and
    Prosecutor: Who do you each claim to be representing?
    (The county of XXX or State of XXX).
    5)Do you
    have any factual evidence of that, with you here today?
    6)Judge and
    Prosecutor: Do you both have an oath of office, with you here today?
    7)Judge and
    Prosecutor: Do you both have a Certificate of Appointment or Certificate of
    Election, with you here today?
    8)Judge and
    Prosecutor: Do you both have evidence of bonding?
    9)Judge and
    Prosecutor: What is the name and address of your bonding company? I will need that when I am injured here today.
    10)Judge: Are you going to Guarantee the protection of my
    Natural Inherent Unalienable Rights that that you have sworn an Oath to protect
    under your Constitution?
    11)Judge: Is this an Article III Constitutional court that guarantees
    Constitution protections?
    12)Judge and Prosecutor: Are you both public trustees?
    13)Judge and Prosecutor: What are your fiduciary duties as public trustees?
    14)Prosecutor: Do you have evidence of a license to practice law,
    with you here today? Bar card is not a License to Practice Law.
    15)Prosecutor: If so, who or from whom did you obtain such a license?
    16)Judge and Prosecutor: What immunities are you claiming to be operating
    under for the office you are holding?
    17)Judge and Prosecutor: What types of immunities are there that
    you can claim?
    Three types, absolute,
    qualified, or public service.
    18)Judge and Prosecutor: What evidence of these immunities do
    you have with you here today?
    19)Judge and Prosecutor: Who delegated these immunities to you?
    20)Judge and Prosecutor: Will you be willing to wave those
    immunities to Guarantee the protection of my Natural Inherent Unalienable
    Rights that that you have sworn an Oath to protect under your Constitution?

  20. yay ;that judge thought she could run outa the courtroom…im not saying its becausa me the videoers  got there but i did do the  post on fb   and gave some people a headsup like  Ridley….. plus i call Mr. Marple beforehand and called various PDs around this and courts,and you know what? The concord court said  he was NOT ON THE DOCKET  FOR THAT DAY… and directed me to hooksett court and pd and  i was told try  concord pd  and basically given the run around…… so i called  Mr. Marple and told him no one had record and it wasnt on the docket and he said ” they are just saying that because  they dont want people there! And you know what ,HE WAS RIGHT! :they lied to me  and told me  it wasnt on the docket!… SO GLAD PEOPLE WITH VIDEOS GOT THERE !  Great job… I bet  jurist guy and ridley  probably helped spread the word.  🙂

  21. Amended Question: 3) Who are the true adversaries or Parties to this action and are the True Adversaries to this action physically present in court here today.

    Wait and let the Judge or Prosecutor answer each question.

  22. MikeLorrey yea… then when Ian said “its a public  hearing”  he had no response to that…he was just use to people  being intimidated by him …very similar to   the court clerk in  the uber grandma case… they think the court is THEIR domain..

  23. They did that to a friend of mine “s name was not on the Docket and he didn’t go to court, but at the last minute they called his name and because he wasn’t there held the trial in his absence and of course found him guilty an put out a bench warrant on him.

  24. *davidjurist (not jurist guy) lol

  25. Sjg1 crazy

  26. DavidJurist Intrigare exactly this stuff does chip away at their authority in some people’s minds

  27. Addendum to Questions below. 

    21)Judge and
    Prosecutor: What factual evidence do you have that your Constitution, Codes of
    Laws, Codes of Regulations, Titles, Chapters and Sections derived there from
    apply to me merely because I am physically present on the land?

  28. when they were in the hallway discussing why they let Mr. Marple talk without  just saying “contempt” and  security hauling him off, its trues the reasons they said but they didnt mention one other important reason or if they did say it I missed it:CAMERAS aka people watching  aka accountability… so      as everyone (mostley) knows cameras are key :-)….  and that court didnt want them  as evidenced by the security guy  harrassing Ian and    when they told ME  that  it wasnt on the docket… and them not wanting  them  imo screems “bring them ” lol

  29. Yawn… Null…

  30. Jumping Jacks The judge has the authority, not the security guy. He can’t do shit without the judge ordering him to. If the judge told us to shut off the camera and we didn’t then he’d be instructed to hold us in contempt of course. That’s not what happened. 

    If you listened to what Dick was saying he was NOT motioning the court. He could not motion the court. He DID file something with the court though and the judge says she was unaware of it and then proceeded to act without knowledge. Whether Dick is or isn’t wrong you haven’t even followed what he is saying which is evidenced by your choice of words and lack of understanding of his arguments and actions.

  31. Jumping Jacks  Now now Jacks, no need to get all worked up.  Rest assured, this man is no threat to your status as top fool.  Why, what would these boards be like if you weren’t here all this time playing the fool for us?  Not a pretty picture, is it Jacks?

    I must admit, it is cute that you insist on compliance with all laws Jacks, even if the laws are immoral and even if the state itself doesn’t follow its own laws.  I truly hope your masters don’t ever forget your loyalty and toss you aside like yesterday’s garbage.

  32. libretea Jumping Jacks The bailiff told Ian to tun of the camera because the next hearings were about to start. Ian did. Marple is a mess and then some. Have you noticed it’s the wackos from freekeene, copblock, and libertarians that are going to jail or are busted for warrants. Marple will lose this one.

    http://www.unionleader.com/State-rep.-for-Hooksett-arrested-on-electronic-bench-warrant

  33. Intrigare Jumping Jacks Your ridiculous ramblings and rants have nothing to do with this article. Your freekeene trolling is getting better.

  34. It seems the writing style of Intrigare is awfully close to the writing style of Drac, Jacks. Hmm, interesting. You are right about the fact that “they” are hapless trolls of the crumbling group called Free Keene.

  35. Jumping Jacks Intrigare Thar she blows! Man the harpoons!

  36. Milwaukee Don’t you mean “sham of a cult,” Milwuakee darling? I so prefer that description. It rolls much more awkwardly off the tongue.

  37. DavidCrawford4 MikeLorrey The case was over. The bailiff does enforce the rules in the courtroom. The bailiffs are there to enforce the rules of the court. I suggest you do a little research regarding a bailiffs job

  38. I don’t think he did all that good he said things that did not defend the reason he was there in court, Expired drivers License.

    Second of all why did he wait until he was Retired to do anything? 

    He could have helped a great deal more if he was on inside.

    As I have said before the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to Americans Nationals, it only applies to UNITED STATES CITIZENS, WHO are Citizens of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION.

    WE are ALL AMERICAN NATIONALS and not UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

    An American National is any one Born in America, we are like the American Indians, we where born here in America, and not the UNITED STATES.

    As every one should know the UNITED STATES when talking graphically is the ten miles square of Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, The Virgin Islands, and any possession of the United States meaning military bases or corporation buildings.

    If you where NOT born in any of those places you are not a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and even if you where born in any of those places it does not automatically make any one a UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

    I am an American National, born in a hospital in Territory commonly known as Massachusetts, now living on the land in a territory known as South Carolina, I was not born in any of e places described above so by definition I CAN NOT be a UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

    Also if you look at Title 28 UNITED STATES CODE Section 3002(15)(a), 3002(15)(b) and 3002(15)(c) it tells you right there the UNITED STATES is a Corporation, which begs the question can any one be born in a Corporation? Well I guess you could be born in a building like Wal-Mart but would then be a WAL-MAT CITIZEN, for the learning impaired the answer is NO.

  39. DavidJurist Sjg1 You really need to read  the US Supreme Court case of Hendrick v Maryland, 235 US 610 (1915) – it is not just in commerce – here’s the exact words from the opinion:
    “In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others.”

  40. Jumping Jacks Intrigare Aw Jacks, those are some astute observations.  I wish I could say your trolling is getting better, but its… let me see how I can put this in the nicest way… repetitive.  In fact, you can read my previous posts to find my correct prediction of everything you were about to say!  Now how did I know that?

    You can also find my non-troll, on-topic posts. You see Jacks, I write a little something for everyone here.  Perhaps you could learn to do that someday.  No worries, I won’t hold my breath.

  41. Milwaukee Why thank you, Milwaukee.  I’m happy to be a member of your troll group. I’d say in every troll group, there should be a hunter and a hunted.  Wouldn’t you agree Milwaukee?

  42. Drac Vermell Milwaukee You mean like something that promises to be a cult but really isn’t?  lol!

  43. he keeps answering to ( and thus granting jurisdiction ) Mr. MARPLE…..Mr MARPLE IS THE FICTION ….ALSO …when the ” judge ” says ” YOU ” SHE IS NOT REFERRING TO HIM, ” YOU ” IS THE FICTION..and he is answering to ” YOU ”

  44. Seeing that I am so old I can relate to this Intrigare.

  45. DRACdouble Tsk, tsk, DD darling. You’ll also remember that in times past one could also challenge one’s rivals to a duel. I trust that your weapon of choice wouldn’t be a socket wrench, now would it poppet?

  46. Jumping Jacks DavidCrawford4 MikeLorrey He was enforcing non-existent rules. He clearly went back to the judge to get permission to arrest, but we were in the right to be recording and he needs to be directed by a judge to make an arrest outside of what would be clearly illegal. There is a standing order that says you can record in the court room. You can’t record outside the court room. We were not violating these rules. He was trying to intimidate us into obeying rules that don’t exist. He doesn’t have the ultimate authority in the court room. The judge does.

  47. Jumping Jacks libretea The bailiff doesn’t have the power. The judge does. There is a rule saying you can’t record outside the courtroom. We could record in the courtroom. The bailiff was threatening us for recording something for which we could record. We didn’t need permission to record what he was telling us not to record. If the judge had told us to stop then it might be true that we had to stop. This was not the judge telling us to stop. This was a bailiff acting outside the judge’s orders without any authority to stop us.

  48. You all have some real mental issues. You shiw no respect for anyone but yourself. You all vlaim the laws are unconstitutional but fail to either read or admit that in the nh constitution..secong part article 5, it gives the government the power to make laws. And it is the people to elect those people who serve and make those laws. Laws that have been accepted by majority of the people. Your court antics show you are just children having a temper tantrum. Real adults who want to make change would do it the right way. But not you. I really hope the judges start throwing you idiots in jail. It will not surprise me that this gets deleted.

  49. They ALL have mental issues and illnesses in some form Raymond Whipple. Many of the members of Free Keene have the mental record’s to back up your claims. They are childlike adults, felons, drug dealers and mental patients. They unfortunately tend to gravitate towards each other in some sick and twisted cyclone of thinking they are inherently deserving of privileges. They are a sad bunch.

  50. If a law is “accepted” by a majority of people, but the law itself is still wrong, say for instance a law which said it was okay to own other people, are you obligated to follow it?  Should a person remain a slave until other people vote him his freedom?

    I look forward to your well thought out and concise reply.

Care to comment?