State Rep. Dick Marple Found Guilty of “Driving After Suspension” + Full Trial Video

State Representative Dick Marple again faced down Concord district court judge Kristin M Spath in their final round recently – his trial. At previous hearings and the trial, Marple has wowed observers by shouting at the judge and getting away with it as well as using long-talked-about court theories like refusing to cross the bar. (You can see his other hearings here and here.) He’s challenged jurisdiction from the beginning, and despite Spath’s ruling that she has jurisdiction, Marple still refused to participate in the trial they held for him on April 18th.

Instead he verbally sparred with Spath again for nearly 20 minutes before she proceeded with the show trial. Marple continued to refuse her invitation to cross the bar and sat in the audience through the state’s lone witness against him. Spath ended up taking the matter under advisement after the close of the state prosecutor’s case and later issued her ruling via a mailed order.

In the order, she found Marple not guilty of the misdemeanor “prohibitions” charge regarding his driver’s license, as the state neglected to present any actual evidence, but found him guilty of “driving after suspension”, sentencing him to $310 in fines, all suspended for six months on condition of Marple not getting any further moving motor vehicle violations in that timeframe.

Trial watchers had expected this light punishment for the 85-year-old state representative, who was able to get away with talking to a robed-person in a way that trial observers have ever seen. Most people who tried Marple’s approach would probably be arrested for “contempt of court” and thrown in jail. Was he able to talk back to the judge because Marple is a state rep? Perhaps because he’s elderly? Both?

Regardless, the big question now is whether or not he’ll appeal to the NH Supreme Court. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for any further developments!

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


8 Comments

  1. johnrowe1

    Driving is intangible rights, due to communism in US Inc it has usurped, in Title 31 sect 3113 and 311?, as Military and no constitution is UN Pledged now all is under the UN and courts are using the International Charter of Judge in Roma Italy using that charter foreign constitutions or other PMA and charter as explained below, from the US Bar foundation and illegal use of 1947 Bar treaty…

    So we have a Charter Company the United states of America 1789 (Netherlands), acting as a country with its constitution of its Charter corp company, and we have a United States Inc, a chartered municipal corporation, acting as a county where the Real courts was under the Perpetual union the one supreme court, which was changed by the Bar to the One Supreme Court and is acting as it is the one supreme court.

    Then they re-charted into the UN and the Organization of States, whereby US inc a corp had to have the Netherlands to do the signing for country or because Netherlands is the parent charter. Either way by no Association of PMA or charters, and as private corporations they have no jurisdiction of anything anywhere. Further the specific acts by number there show collections of taxes with Title 31 sect 3131 to ?, whereby all tangible and intangible rights have been usurped, and all Americans are paying for the SSN ponzi along with funding the New world Order… as was pledge with U.S. and the Military.

    Now we know the Bar was created by the Congress under Bar Foundation, and is using the 1947 Treaty and is an Association in claim of courts to keep everyone out of courts as you’re not in the Association or Charters of them anyway.Which constitutes a monopoly and most likely is vacant of delegation of authority for Congress to do that.

    And Apparently their Charter under the International Charter of Judges in Roma Italy is part of their act and monies scheme.

    more Democratic communist frauds… made with the 1976 Interdependence with school Unions tainting children and the New Constitution of States, and the city state plan with the city’s Metro Association changing cites in states, all a product of communism. question is do Americans wake up and get their country back and free it of foreign criminals and charters usurping them ?

    Reply
  2. Jumping Jacks

    Marple is an idiot. I’m sure he will do something ridiculously stupid to get into trouble again.

    Reply
    • Drac Vermell

      Say Jacks, I’ve noticed that in your recent posts concerning this case you’ve left out all of your usual flaccid nonsense about “consequences.”

      And where’s all of that derision I’ve been expecting from you against Marple for not humbly admitting his guilt at the onset? I thought that you abhorred the notion that activists should demand due process for their crimes?

      And now that Marple’s been found guilty, where also is your expressed wish that this man be taught a firm lesson inside a prison cell? Calling him an idiot hardly seems sufficient. It’s almost as if you’re letting him off easy.

      I don’t know, Jacks. I’m starting to get very worried about you. You seem really off your game. Have you scheduled an appointment to see a neurologist yet?

  3. Richard Bauman

    No surprise in this ruling – on the other posts on Marple’s other hearings, I pointed out that the US Supreme Court case of Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) is dispositive of his arguments.

    A number of years back I was playing chess against a friend and he moved his rook diagonally. I informed him that the rules stated that a rook cannot move diagonally. For the next 5 minutes, he vehemently argued that the rules were other than we all know them to be. He said that the rules are that rooks can move forwards or backwards and showed me a website that stated such (https://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess) and that it doesn’t specifically say that it cannot move diagonally. He felt that there is such a term as forward and backward diagonals. He wanted his POV to be right that he overlooked the years and years of history and experiences that were in opposition to his beliefs.

    Just because someone is adamant about their position (in the face of all contrary evidence otherwise) doesn’t make that person right. Even Ian will admit that he has failed in this legal sophistry and so have others in Free Keene. If you don’t fully understand the rules, it is hard to win the game. Even though you may want the rules to be different (and are dogged in that thought), there are usually consequences to your violating those rules. Here is Example #125 out of #innumerable.

    Reply
    • Drac Vermell

      There’s a flaw in your argument that’s not being properly addressed by your chess analogy, Richard. Unlike a friendly game with one of your chums, both players agree to follow the rules. More importantly, either player can choose to suspend or quit the game when the other resorts to cheating.

      No such agreement exists when playing a game of chess with the government. Unlike you, these folks have coaches and a referee whose salaries you pay for. And if they cheat you still have to play the game with them. Should the referee cheat as well, you of course have the option to petition a hierarchy of referees to review the game – but there’s one catch – the referees at the top of the hierarchy have the expressed power to “interpret” the rules, even if their intended meaning is already clear.

    • Richard Bauman

      To the contrary Drac, my friend and I never explicitly agreed to play by any rules. There was an implicit agreement that we would play by the rules of the game – nothing signed, no express agreement of any kind.

      That is what Every person does when on a public right of way – they implicitly agree to the rules which govern them – one of which is to have a valid driver’s license (see the statutes adopted by the NH legislature of which – ironically – Marple is a member). That is how the US legal system works. Marple can choose not to drive on public right of ways if he feels he is cheated – have someone with a license drive him, use a different mode of transportation etc.

      We can get into a philosophical discussion about how the system SHOULD be – but these legal proceedings are about how the system actually function in the real world. What is unfortunate is that Marple completely misunderstands how our current legal system works – there are no such things as Affidavits of Truth in this case,, the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) doesn’t apply, “consumer goods” is inapplicable to the motor vehicle regulatory system etc – I even noticed some third party trying to make some “Special Appearance” during this video – again not understanding the actual procedures to follow.

      Understand this, I am not saying that the current legal system is perfect, fair or that you and others do not have valid philosophical criticisms of it. My point is that Marple and others who try this tact re travel are doomed to fail – for the simple reason that they don’t understand or don’t want to accept how the system works. A comprehensive understanding of the legal system will help in order to understand how to change it.

      Yelling and arguing at a judge at a court trial about irrelevant matters like Affidavits of Truth and UCC and “consumer goods”will not be productive and to applaud that behavior is counter productive to understanding how to implement change.

    • Drac Vermell

      The counterproductive nature of Marple’s legal defense was never in question, Richard. However, Ian’s covering of this case had a much broader purpose – to shed some light on the arbitrary nature of jurisdiction and why our rulers are so jealous to guard it. The rule of law here is not the reality of the situation anyway – it’s the principle that the ruled must always bend to pressure once the rulers decide to apply it – or else. And it’s that looming “or else” that underscores the dilemma here. The rulers are always much less afraid of it than the ruled are. That’s why they make use of this fear whenever someone tries to use their “comprehensive understanding of the legal system” against them.

      As for your incomplete understanding of the concept of implicit contracts, Richard, I wonder why it hasn’t occurred to you that such contracts are only desirable when either party can suspend the agreement once any party breaks the terms? I could list hundreds of examples here, Richard, but I’m sure you understand the unbalanced nature of this agreement, now don’t you? It’s hard to imagine any intelligent person ever consciously agreeing to it, but that’s why advocates of this notion like to refer to them as “implicit” in the first place – even when they’re actually not. They hope to deter any discussion that promotes the idea that this agreement can in any way rightfully be rejected.

  4. David Crawford

    Dick Marple is a lion for liberty here. We there People are very very very fortunate to have him as liberties champion..in a world of status quo… and cowtowing

    Reply

Care to comment?