State Rep Dick Marple Returns to Court, Schools Judge on Jurisdiction, Corporate Government, & More

Judge M. Kristin Spath

Judge M. Kristin Spath of Concord District Court

Just a few weeks after his last appearance in Concord district court, state representative Dick Marple returned Friday afternoon for a nearly 40-minute hearing where he explains his views on why the court does not have jurisdiction over him, among other things.

Marple was arrested as he was campaigning for re-election at the polls in Hooksett, on a “failure to appear” charge relating to a charge for driving while his license is suspended. Marple believes he is not subject to the motor vehicle regulations, as they only apply to automobiles used for commercial purposes. He has citations to back his case (click for PDF of his legal brief filed with the court), but so does the state’s prosecutor.

It’s one of the most interesting cases in recent memory because for a long time we’ve heard all manner of similar claims to what Marple is saying, but virtually none of the courtroom theorists like him have any evidence they’ve actually tried their theories. (Longtime readers of Free Keene may recall I was arrested in Keene district court for “contempt” a decade ago for trying some unusual legal theories out.) At his last appearance, in front of a full courtroom of average court victims, Marple got away with things for which most people would be arrested for “contempt”. Friday, he once again refused to cross the bar, and raised his voice with judge M. Kristin Spath multiple times. However, this time the court scheduled the hearing for 3pm on a Friday when no one else would be around to see it. Thankfully, liberty activists had been given a heads-up the night before, so a small crew headed up from Keene to witness and record the hearing:



Dick Marple

State Rep Dick Marple campaigns at the polls.

The thing with these legal theories is that beyond the scant evidence of anyone actually succeeding with them, is that the court and the government at large does not follow their own rules. The legal theorists’ main presumption is that the state does follow their rules, and when they don’t, the theorists are surprised when the guilty verdict comes in, the contempt charges come down, and handcuffs go on.

When the theorists who tried out the theories (usually alone in court and without any recording) consult their legal theory gurus, the gurus inevitably say that the person must have made a mistake and didn’t utter the right magic words at the right time. If by some miracle their case is dismissed, until someone else can duplicate the results, there’s no way to know if the case wasn’t just dropped because the hassle wasn’t worth the prosecutor’s or court’s time, rather than the drop being the result of the uttering of some magic words.

Marple’s special because he’s actually applying the theories in court and has communicated to us that he wants coverage, so we’re getting some really unique footage of these ideas actually being tried. His trial’s slated for January 23rd at 1:30pm at Concord district court, unless the judge agrees with his argument and drops the case. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.

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!


32 Comments

  1. See ”  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbillssponsored.aspx?member=376245″ for Dick Marple [ http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376245  ] gets to HB331 + 375 for: ” relative to the standard of review for government requirements on commercial enterprises. ”  and “:relative to the penalties for failure to deliver goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. ” respectfully.  The first one is set for a Public Hearing on Tuesday morning: ”  Commerce and Consumer Affairs on 1/19/2017 2:45 PM at LOB Room 302″ / / / / / My notes to what the Prosecutor woman said here is: (1a) 94NH501 (1947) and (1b) 28NH220 (1916) State power to regulate an automobile and motor vehicle respectfully, and (2) Hardin v. Maryland case at 235US610 (1915); compared to what Dick said of: (1) 763F.2d1344 = all codes, rules and regulations pertain to non sovereigns, and (2) U.S. v. Cooper 318U.S.600 of a “person” is not the sovereign. / / / / / My comments to you all afterwards (yeah, that’s me in orange sitting in the front row there) that I didn’t put into my case of this basic stuff of the comparison of between an automobile (personal property) and a Motor Vehicle  (for commercial use) nor a person v.s. sovereign, but that of in ANY case from all that George Gordon “School of Law” stuff from Boise, Idaho from back in the 1980s when he and his wife came to here in New Hampshire on a visit to meet with us in their  un-licensed plated motor home, I used his info of The Oregon Law Review of December 1953, @ page #1 in the State v. Haas case #87-S-313 in Merrimack County Superior Court for Driving With-Out a License (Michael Th. Johnson the County Attorney / Prosecutor) on a 2nd offense (Class A misdemeanor jail time possibility after the 1st offense violation only ) in Concord District Court, that of a license is a restraint on the individual when you are a PROVEN threat to the public, and so ONLY that of after an accident is put onto your record. The case was dismissed by nol-pros since they did not want to admit that of costing the State $millions in revenue. I used to put cf. 87-S-313 after my name, then c.f., and now to do a TDC (like what Dick said at 21:21 minutes here) of under Threat, Duress and Coercion.   See also : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

  2. he’d exhaust me … i like the guy  and would be a supporter  but hes exhausting imo…love the guy though

  3. boy he coulda got a worse judge thats for sure….lol… jeees ….if there were ten of this guy  and younger…though him being old sure aint holdin him back but with ten younger ones you could take over

  4. great job videoing ; this man deserves it…. super job videoing ….i mean really….this guy is a champion :-)…

  5. i feel bad for him though…because  all this banging his head  is …im sure it will probably get him nowhere…   i ssure hope he wins though;im deffinatly rooting for him…he may drop dead in the courtroom …its  … 🙁

  6. One thing I would like to ask Mr. Marple is: What gives the the corporate government jurisdiction over motor vehicles? What does it matter whether I am “operating a motor vehicle” for profit or whether I am just “traveling in my automobile” if I have not consented to be governed by these laws? Is the distinction based upon the acceptance of “corporate status”, i.e. in the form of incorporation or as an llc, since those are creations of the state?

  7. just because i said Ian good videoing dont mean  he aint still a fucking scumbag he is still a fucking lying scumbag

  8. reads like a good question to me.

  9. JosephSHaas I’d love to see him win. He did a great job, a? I’m not sure he’s going to win sadly, but he definitely is giving it a good go. I think Ian is right- the courts don’t obey their own laws so I’m doubtful this will go anywhere.

  10. He is a courtroom jester.  He knew he had to appear in court and he blew it off. The warrant was valid and his continued antics mean nothing.

  11. The criminal organization, the “State of New Hampshire” imagines it can aggregate a sum of zero individual rights to coerce and come out with a positive sum granting itself the right to coerce, ie creating something from nothing, which is a logical fail.  Therefore, the State is a lie.    

    Not to mention, “Against the peace and dignity of the State” is a phrase laden with oxymoronic overtones.    

    Oh yeah silly judge with the bad hairdo??!!!  Well, well,  Lysander Spooner!! I win.

  12. Jumping Jacks

    Well for once, you are correct blind squirrel.  Sovereign citizenship is ridiculous because it attempts to combine two opposing concepts into one.   Sort of like when the “State of New Hampshire” sells weed, thus breaking “federal law” and then arrests people for weed using the federal drug schedule as their rationale  because they never made or published their own.  (Now THAT is funny)  

    Can you identify the person that Dick Marple harmed or injured and how much he should restitute them?  I don’t believe he harmed anybody, but I do see some criminals trying to steal money from him. 

    Maybe the lady in the black robe just wants some money to get a better hair dresser?

  13. The reason he will not win (and the reason all these “right to travel” people don’t win) is because the US Supreme Court has already ruled directly on this in Hendrick v. Maryland 235 U.S. 610 (1915) that:
     “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. And, to this end, it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers” at p. 623

    Note that it says those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS (bolding added).

    It is well settled law despite some people protestations otherwise.

  14. The words “operateoperator” and “motor Vehicle” are legally defined as being objects in commerce. The phrase “as well as others” refers to other forms of commercial activities besides just “interstate commerce”. It is about commerce!

  15. That’s usually what people say when the have no knowledge of the law!

  16. “His trial’s slated for January 23rd at 1:30pm at Concord district court,
    unless the judge agrees with his argument and drops the case.”
    Whatever happened??

  17. Mewrightnow No, they are not. The definition of “motor vehicle” often cited comes from Title 18 of the United States Code, and refers specifically and exclusively to its use within Chapter 2 of Title 18.  The definition of “motor vehicle” comes from the definitions section of Chapter 2 of Title 18, which explicitly limits the definition of terms to that chapter.  There are other, differing definitions of “motor vehicle” found elsewhere in the United States Code, and those definitions apply specifically and exclusively to the chapters and titles in which they are found.

    “Motor vehicle” may also be defined under state statutes, and under those statutes, the definition of the phrase may vary from Chapter 2 of Title 18.  Which, of course, means that for “motor vehicle” to be limited to objects in commerce under state law, the state law must explicitly state that is so.

  18. They do that with most statutes and codes… usually along with “for the purposes of this section… the term —— means —–” The states can not override federal rulings and a quick look up reveals multitudes of federal suits where is stated that commercial use is the subject of the law. One such is the following.
    -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

  19. Try this one…
    Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

  20. Mewrightnow 
    The case you cited does not distinguish between “motor vehicles” and “automobiles,” try again. It only distinguishes between “‘for hire’ vehicles” and “automobile stages.”  Additionally, a “for hire” vehicle under the relevant statute was defined as “all motor vehicles other than automobile stages” (in other words, a subset of all “motor vehicles,” with the exception of “automobile stages”).

    The case doesn’t say what you think it says.  Additionally, it is a 1926 decision of the Washington (State) Supreme Court, not any US Federal Court (though it does cite certain decisions of the US Supreme Court).

    Likewise, Holland v. Shackelford is a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia from 1964. This case does not say anything about the use of an automobile or motor vehicle. What it addresses is a landowner’s interference with a developer’s use of his land by blocking access to the street.

    Stavola v. Palmer is a case from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut from 1950. This case involved a railroad, and whether a roadway was public or private. The quote you cited appears nowhere in the case.  In fact, the word “automobile” appears nowhere in the case.

    Liebrecht v. Crandall is a 1910 case from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  That case does include the language (though it is taken out of context and is not the complete quote) you appeared to cite to Stavola v. Palmer, however, it does not define “automobile” as a pleasure vehicle. In fact, it doesn’t define the word automobile anywhere at all in the case.

  21. Cute twist. Never mind. You’re obviously here to misinform since you have all the twisted version on every post right at your fingertips.

  22. Mewrightnow What on earth are you talking about? Have you ever bothered to read the actual cases, or are you simply citing references that other people have made before without doing any fact checking for yourself?

    Fortunately, I have access to this wonderful program called Lexis Nexis, it allows anyone (who pays for the service) to have near instant access to virtually all reported court cases. It gives the reader the wonderful opportunity to actually read what the Courts said in their own words rather than what other people said the Courts said in the decision.

    The only twisted versions being posted are coming from you. You’re the one citing old state supreme court cases as proof that federal courts have ruled that “motor vehicle” means commerce. They don’t say that, at all, period.

  23. terminalbrd Mewrightnow Dick did just inform me by e-mail to see: ” 18 USC 31: Definitions Text contains those laws in effect on February 23, 2017From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMESCHAPTER 2-AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLESJump To: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section31&num=0&edition=prelim#sourcecredithttp://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section31&num=0&edition=prelim#amendment-notehttp://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section31&num=0&edition=prelim#effectivedate-amendment-notehttp://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section31&num=0&edition=prelim#shorttitle-amendment-note§31. Definitions(a) Definitions.-In this chapter, the following definitions apply:. . . 
    (6) Motor vehicle.-The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power andused for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.” So what you’ve written is that what? Until We, the People, do give our “consent” to this as Article 12 “inhabitants” [  https://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  ]  that we are not “subject” to such a definition?  I think Dick does agree or “consent” to this individually and so does not need any group approval. So with-OUT any State deviation of away from this tie of a motor vehicle AND  its commercial use the definition of BOTH therein to be complete is the answer that when of for when of  personal use as personal property we are NOT subject to any such tax.

  24. What was the outcome in this case?

  25. What about I D of operator registration etc for insurance purposes. I hope you have insurance when you cause a tragedy. If you don’t I hope they put you under the jail. So if you are required to have a DL, reg. Etc then good for all who share the byway vs irresponsible bags of hammers.

  26. Jurisdiction because the car manufacturers initially sell their new motor vehicles with a title. The title is a contract between the government n the manufacturer for the purpose of it being used as an instrument of Commerce purposes. But automobile, privately bought or built vehicles are not subjected to the terms of that contract (title). Therefore, it’s not a requirement to register your automobile because it’s not bounded by the contract anymore. So traveling with that personal automobile does not require a driver license because a drivers license is a contract with the government to allow individuals the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for sole purpose of Commerce. Hopefully I didn’t confuse u

  27. Here is also another way to look at it.
    Privilege. A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law.
    Read says within it self a privilege is something given….. #1 What are you given? The state gives you nothing .. We pay Property tax. State income tax federal income tax. Sales tax. Gas Tax. Death tax and many more. Also when the state wants you to get there fake liceance you also pay for that you pay for your own automobile . You pay for your insurance your pay for tabs title and licance so with all that’s said its not a Privlidge it our Right as Americans We the People..
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GlgTwp93E48

  28. RSMo 302.015. License classification system, director to establish — categories. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Title XII of Pub. Law 99-570), the director shall have the authority to establish a license classification system, and shall not be limited to classification of the following:

    ? (1) Any person, other than one subject to sections 302.700 to 302.780, who operates a motor vehicle in the transportation of persons or property, and who receives compensation for such services in wages, salary, commission or fare; or who as an owner or employee operates a motor vehicle carrying passengers or property for hire;

  29. If you are in the state then the state laws apply to you. You don’t have to agree or sign anything. You give consent to their applicability when you cross the line into that state. That is how you give them jurisdiction over you. If you don’t like their laws….leave. They won’t miss you. Gotta ask. Are all of you following this theory retarded or just too much bud?

  30. Can anyone tell me were this case is as of the last was January of this year is there a disposition to this case

  31. @freekeene what’s the update with this case , has it been successfully felt with?

Care to comment?