District Court Judge Rules Against State Rep Marple’s Claim of No Jurisdiction; Trial Date Set

Judge M. Kristin Spath

Judge M. Kristin Spath of Concord District Court

After amazing video where New Hampshire state representative Dick Marple verbally spanked Concord district court judge M. Kristin Spath in her own courtroom twice, Spath has hit back with a two-page order justifying her claim that she has jurisdiction over the case.

Marple has been charged for driving without a license and has argued that the court has no jurisdiction over him as he is not “operating a motor vehicle”, which he says is a legal term that only applies to people traveling for commercial purposes. Despite Marple filing an exhaustive legal memorandum outlining the various cases on which he bases his position, the robed woman cited her own court cases:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also consistently ruled that the operation of an automobile- upon a public highway is not a right, but” … only a privilege which the state may grant or withhold at pleasure …. ” State V; Sterrin, 78 N.H. 220, 222 (1916), citing Comm.v. Kingsbury, 199 Mass. 542. The Court, in State v. Sterrin, at 222, also cited State v. Corron, 73 N.H. 434, 446 (1905), which references a liquor licensee, by stating: “The statute confers a privilege which the citizen is at liberty to accept by becoming a licensee, or not, as he pleases. Having accepted the privilege, he cannot object to any conditions which have been attached thereto by a grantor with power to entirely withhold the privileges.”

Translation: “There is no right to travel safely on the roads without asking your master government’s permission first. We are in charge here and you’ll do what we say, or else.”

Dick Marple

State Rep Dick Marple campaigns at the polls.

Spath then went on to have the trial date for Marple driving without the state permission slip set for April 18th at 12:45pm in Concord district court.

However, it doesn’t end there. Marple has since filed an 11-page “Affidavit of Truth – in Commerce – Second Demand” with the NH Secretary of State’s office and the court. In the affidavit, Marple challenges jurisdiction again, saying the court needs to show the signed “instrument” where he consents to their rule and further demands a jury trial. He says Spath’s stand on her alleged jurisdiction is an “abuse of discretion” and cites more court cases claiming that the state may not interfere in your personal business. He demands the case be dismissed with prejudice, saying that Spath’s claim that he voluntarily chose to acquire a license is false. Marple says he was under duress to contract for the license:

“The photo ID purchased bas imbedded under the plastic following this Affiant’s signaturethe letters “TDC”, signifying, “Threat, Duress, and Coercion” hence not a meeting of the minds and not a valid contract”

On page three of his affidavit, Marple contends that that if the target of the affidavit does not rebut the issues raised within 15 days that it:

will be understood as a confession and acceptance, as well as tacit acquiescence of all FACTS herein enumerated… “Government officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages”. Ryder v United States, 115 S. Ct 2031,132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, “Failure to contest an assertion … is considered evidence of acquiescence”. US Supreme Court, Mitchell v. United States- No. 97-7541 (Dec. 9, 1998)

According to this document from the Secretary of state, judge Spath and the clerk of court Theresa A McCafferty, have not responded to rebutted any of Marple’s Affidavit of Commercial Default filed back in December.

Where will this go next? Presumably to trial. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Maybe some of you legal scholars out there can can help enlighten this layman on a particular point. How is it that we have a legal system ostensibly based on a Constitution and founded on God given rights and natural law, claim through apparent legal precedent, the authority to grant citizens “privileges”? I beg to sound rhetorical, but isn’t that why our forefathers fought the Revolutionary War-to free the subjects from the tyranny of a monarchy and what can be considered a more recent variant – the modern authoritarian state-claiming powers not granted it by said Constitutions? It’s my understanding that not all of the states ascribe to this doctrine of privilege granting power at least regarding non-commercial drivers’ licenses. That may have changed post 9-11. I do recognize U.S. citizens currently have no guarantee of due process under the NDAA and can be legally abducted or worse, but I wasn’t aware NH state government had gone rogue as well.
    Darn, and I was planning to relocate from my own commie state of MA to freer pastures to the north.

  2. First, you don’t need a drivers license to travel. Second, the court needs to prove they have Territorial jurisdiction. Third, the officer took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and that makes him a federal officer, and he only has jurisdiction on Federal Property. There is one other thing. The Judge is her own corporation, and he is not a member of the judges Private corporation. No he can demand the case be dismissed with prejudice.

  3. According to the dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motor%20vehicle a motor vehicle is ANY ” automotive vehicle not operated on rails; especially : one with rubber tires for use on highways ” and the word automotive at: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/automotive = ” propelled by a self-contained motor, engine, or the like. ” of the key word I think is “self” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self as in ” belonging to oneself : own ” of I think that Dick’s HB#____ gets into this title business of actually some monkey-business of really some “Protection Racket.” These old 1905 and 1916 N.H. cases are opinions of the N.H. Supremes. Thus for to a jury for the FINAL answer! That”s what I demanded by claim in 1983 when “they”/ The State wanted me in jail for up to a 12 months sentence possible on a 2nd offense (Class A misdemeanor) driving without a licence. * Dick is only at stage 1 violation level. He needs to win this or be cited a second time to THEN get to a jury. Or like what the Merrimack County Attorney did in my case of Michael Th. Johnson did dismiss by nol-pros the complaint #83-S-313 against me because they were afraid to set a precedent of to loose $millions of dollars in that I cited “The Oregon Law Review” of 1953, December at page 1 in that: a license is a restraint on the individual WHEN you are a proven threat to the public at large; and so NOT a threat until AFTER an accident. I didn’t and don’t use this TDC tactic, but similar of I did mark the application form for these ID cards they call licenses with that of cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf. = to compare of see another source of information being cf. 83-S-=313 Merr.Co,.Sup.Ct. I used to put on there but then was told at the local sub-station of to go to Concord and tried there too, but REFUSED of they said I’d have to wait weeks and months for an appointment to argue this to the higher-up, of I just signed and let what I had previously written not expire but to refer to BOTH the past AND present, PLUS future too. – – Joe, P.S. Back then Homer St. Francis was the Native American Indian Chief of the Abenaki Tribe headquartered in Vermont, of him for them having claimed a good chunk of land in both Vermont and New Hampshire and in addition to their fish-ins every year also had those Abenaki License plates for sale too at a donation of ten ($10.00) dollars each, of I bought one but had to have two I guess by N.H. statute of for ID, and so yet to test that out with another $10.00 donation to become complete. Footnote: Judge Spath is on The Judicial Council https://www.nh.gov/judicialcouncil/ plus see https://www.nh.gov/judicialcouncil/aboutus/council.htm since there is a vacancy for a Lay Member appointed by the G&C. Maybe some reader here might like to apply to The Governor ** Executive Council https://www.nh.gov/council/ by the Wed., April 19th @ 10:00 a.m. deadline for to be nominated and confirmed at their Wed., May 3rd meeting? A letter of Interest should be sent to your Executive Councilor #__ of 5 and Joanne Ruel there at: https://www.nh.gov/council/contact-us/index.htm and the governor’s secretary: e-mail: meagan dot rose at nh dot gov is what Rhonda, the receptionist for Chris Sununu, the governor wrote for me this past week to give to YOU! “Uncle Sam” WANTS YOU! ? – no, but we do for to TRY to balance that of too many attorneys on this Judicial Council, to at least wake them up to the truth sometimes. I think it’s a volunteer job without any pay other than maybe some written commission with the governor’s autograph that like maybe 50 years from now you can sell for $big bucks on E-bay. I still have my 1970s Notary Public document signed by Mel; Thomson.

  4. Marple belongs in a rubber room. Perhaps he’ll finally be placed in one.

  5. Your tool bag must be empty.

  6. The Drivers license issue is intangible property rights, taken by the DNC and Democratic party to control commerce under the DMV and AMV which are Associations or PMA’s. These cases have been won so go to The United States of America and see the cases under Human Rights tribunal versus Winter Park Fla and Colorado. The reignofheavens.com is a posting site which explains all these Socialist and communist controls used to usurp the other bad thing the Netherlanads constitution, and the Charter of Jusges from Roma Italy. Play their videos T-ROH Show also and you will be disclosed these criminal courts applied to you all. see http://reignoftheheavens.com/?page_id=2522

  7. A person who has others assign their status for them without their individual consent may be many things, but free is not among them.

  8. You would think he would file as sui juris.

  9. The use of sovereign nation BS is ridiculous. Playing the semantics games never work. The guy is a little of center.

  10. Iamman51.blogspot.com to understand the rights you think you have.

  11. Citing the “judge”: The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also consistently ruled that the operation of an automobile- upon a public highway is not a right, but” … only a privilege which the state may grant or withhold at pleasure …. ” State V; Sterrin, 78 N.H. 220, 222 (1916), citing Comm.v. Kingsbury, 199 Mass. 542. The Court, in State v. Sterrin, at 222, also cited State v. Corron, 73 N.H. 434, 446 (1905), which references a liquor licensee, by stating: “The statute confers a privilege which the citizen is at liberty to accept by becoming a licensee, or not, as he pleases. Having accepted the privilege, he cannot object to any conditions which have been attached thereto by a grantor with power to entirely withhold the privileges.”
    This may be in contradiction to the supremacy clause because the federal government has defined the terms (see, 18 U.S. Code § 31) “The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.”
    A license would only be required to “operate” in a commercial capacity. The states have no authority to manipulate the terminology in furtherance of their schemes to convert a right to a privilege. Am I missing something here?

  12. It’s ironic how successful you’ve been in calling attention to the fact that you’re a tool in action as well as in name, now isn’t it my pet?

  13. You know, I try to make sense out of the gibberish/word salad these guys push but honestly it just sounds the schizophrenic patients I work with. To them the stuff they say makes perfect sense but in reality it is delusional. If just one of these guys would win a case or gain even a little credibility I’d love it. I consider myself as oppositional and freedom loving as the next guy/gal/person, but for now this just makes you seem like a nut.

  14. Since this IS a New Hampshire case, he, like me, has the option of declaring himself an Art 10 rebel against the state. After that, the state can no longer claim that we give up some our rights to live in society as stated in the preamble. Being in rebellion does not require violent behavior. Passive resistance will suffice Creative nonviolence like the Christ entering Jerusalem on a donkey, mocking the high and mighty. Course, look what it got Him.

  15. When might we see you round Grafton again? I plan on going to this court date.

  16. What is the latest on this case?

  17. You need to have either a jury trial or take it to U.S supreme court with what the brand new Judge Gorsuch said in his swearing in he will fallow the constatution the way it’s write

  18. He is going about this all wrong. Dont make claims. Just ask one simple question: Has the prosecution presented any evidence of jurisdiction that the constitution and laws apply here? Dont go making arguments because then you have to prove them. They cant prove jurisdiction, so it has to be tossed, but if you claim there is no jurisdiction, YOU need to prove that. Only ask questions!

  19. New Hampshire is better than Massachusetts on many issues. Why should one thing that is applied in every single state keep you paying high taxes and not being able to defend yourself? Come north!

  20. If he was suspended he was still contracted and under their jurisdiction. Right principles…wrong timing. Shill no doubt to make it look like you can’t win.

  21. To all of you throwing around the God given rights whine, God didn’t give anyone any rights. He wrote the Bible not the Constitution. All rights ceded to citizens come from duly elected government.

  22. Amazing to me that an elected official wants to be reelected to a government that he 1) doesn’t care for and 2) doesn’t understand. If he is not elected to evaluate and make decisions for his constituents then what does he see his function as? Our reps look at different situations and make decisions for us everyday. We are bound by their decisions because we elected them to do just that. Seems like he is just interested in a steady paycheck so he can spend his time tilting at windmills and imaginary dragons.

  23. Lost ball in tall weeds

  24. Ye you are missing something and I believe it is in your frontal lobe. You know…..the power to reason and think rationally.

  25. Unfortunately, here is the chain of authority…
    Once the people through the king off this continent, the power to make law fell upon the people.
    At that moment, the people could have installed any governance mechanism they wanted. They could have written governing documents that enshrined the principles of the declaration of independence.
    But they did not.
    Instead, just a handful of men created the state constitutions and, ultimately the current federal constitution. All of which call for total rule making authority for the governments.
    Then they picked up rhetoric and guns and proceeded to subject the balance of the population to their authority.

    And its been that way since day one. (Shay’s rebellion. Whisky rebellion.)

    However, if we were so inclined and able, those governing documents could be altered to achieve individual liberty we desire.

  26. This guy is confused – I am confused – he is charged with driving without a license – then it says Marple says he was under duress to get a license – so he’s a complainer, he grumbles but complies anyways, a teeter totterer! – you cannot have it both ways – stop consenting – cancel the license – stand naked on the fact you don’t consent then they have no jurisdiction – the court is correct, he consented to jurisdiction when he accepted the license albeit with a grumble! For example that consent is written in California Vehicle code sections 17459 and 17460. You consent to be the agent for the service of process when you accept a license and/or registration. PERIOD!

  27. If you didn’t already know, the supreme court trumps the state supreme court. So you can’t use a ruling by the state supreme court to negate federal law. That, as an argument, is just ignorant.

    As the second thing I just tried to post this comment and you guys required and by you guys I mean freekeenecom, me to give you my name and emailed address before I could speak. Neither of which has anything to do with me just posting what I had to say. You need to fix that if you stand for First Amendment and all this stuff. This is no different then the cops saying you have to give them your ID before you can leave for no reason

  28. Corrupt Judges are knowingly acting with a vested interest
    Case# 13cr10265FDS and every single court across this country is a coconspirator to this sinister crime of perpetuity. How so one might ask? Federal judges are signing standing orders to invest all the court cases through the Court Registry Investment System, directly deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank located in Dallas/Houston, Texas.
    Every court case is assigned, by the court administrator, a US Treasury Public Debt number, placed onto the court document, including but not limited to traffic citations, after the unknowing participants in the case have received their copy of the same, but without the added monetary transformation of that instrument into a financial transaction, which is the definition of a securitization.
    After the Public Debt number is obtained, which now converts the instrument into a counterfeit obligation pursuant to USC TITLE 18 § 472 et seq.473 ;474, now the court administrator additionally counterfeits the same obligation by adding a CUSIP© number. CUSIP© is the acronym for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. It is a copyrighted registered trademark of The American Bankers Association. This means only one of two things. Firstly being the court administrators are knowingly committing copyright infringement violations in addition to uttering counterfeit obligations, and/or secondly that the court administrator must obviously be a member of the CUSIP©.
    Now the courts have fraudulently converted every court case into a banking financial securities instrument, fraudulently converting the court into the creditor position and the respondent/plaintiff in the matter now unknowingly converted into the debtor. To make matters even worse for the judges, they are knowingly acting with a vested interest with insider knowledge as insider trading in addition to violations of judicial canons.
    Further still, judges are to act without bias, to make rulings on the merit of argument, but instead are making financial investments on every case, knowing the exact meaning of every number and/letter applied to and now written on the face of the instrument in all cases in the form of the CUSIP© and are now ruling based on futures rather than rule of law, evidence, oral or written argument.
    Additionally, the courts are also committing tax fraud by shifting the debt created by every particular case back onto the individual who is the actual Creditor, then fraudulently conveying the case into an investment instrument to be deposited into the
    Dallas Houston Texas Federal Reserve which now shifts money from the Creditor side of the transaction into the pockets of the Debtors side, deceptively laundered now as a fraudulent debt into Corporate assets, converted again into bonds, stocks, and grants given back to the county deceptively through the Department of Transportation, or some other agency, now squeaky clean after the laundry process. (Please refer to “Debenture,” “Convertible Debenture” and all the other definitions listed above.)
    The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15), is bankrupt on the authority of Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an “obligor/grantor” to the Federal Reserve Bank, created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6.
    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not Public Law, nor Public Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for damages. The court ruled,

    Corrupt Judges are knowingly acting with a vested interest
    “…that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible.” Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982)
    “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 Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed.
    57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States (1795) [Emphasis added.] “All codes (Chapter 83, Part II as alleged], rules, and regulations are for
    government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process.” Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). [Emphasis added.]
    Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes “fraud,” and entitles party deceived to avoid contracts or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Birnamwood Oil Co., 92 F.2d 817. “The terms ‘lawful money’ and ‘lawful money of the United States’ shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.” 12 USC 152 Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366, 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835) “Money” does not include treasury notes.” Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536
    ”Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars.” U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. “Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness [not Credit] and promise of payment.” Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487 Smith v. Treuhart, et al., 223
    N.Y.S. 481.
    “As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency – securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of ”We the People” and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of
    finance and commerce as a corporation or person…. Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen.
    This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371
    “When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation” U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq.,
    C.R.S. 11-60-103. “Under a statute defining a negotiable note as a note made by one

    Corrupt Judges are knowingly acting with a vested interest
    person whereby he promises to pay money to another person, and providing that the word ‘person’ should be construed to extend to every corporation capable by law of making contracts, it was held that the word included a state.” State of Indiana v. Woram, 6 Hill (N.Y.) 33, 38, 40 Am. Dec. 378. A state is a person within the meaning of a statute punishing the false making or fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any person may be defrauded. Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61, 68
    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 [Emphasis added.] “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)

  29. Are you a “citizen?” Then you are a slave. Do you have “ID” and a “social security number?” Then you are a slave. Did you “file” something in their court or join yourself to the controversy in a similar matter? Then you give validity to their law and they own you. Educate yourselves. Study to show yourselves approved.

  30. Have you filed a declaration under Article 10 declarating that you are in Rebellion to to New Hampshire? Why not? Otherwise you might fall into the trap of ‘needing to bleed certain of your rights in order to live withing a “certain society”. F them. Freedom stands far beyond any ” society” structured by ‘central control (communism)’, right (or wrong)??? Don’t get me started about God’s gift of individual Freedom (nor the horrible truth that it is again snowing here in Grafton, NH)

  31. “To Operate” means commerce. Operating a business upon the public what carrying passengers or cargo for profit. “To Drive” is also a commercial term, meaning to operate a licensed vehicle for profit.

    Traveling (not for profit) in a private conveyance is right preexisting CORPORATIONS.

  32. Wanna use the road. Then help pay to build and maintain them. Wanna travel? Start walking. Also would it be ok for my 6 yo to travel in a car like you want to? I mean, she has the same rights that you do.

Care to comment?