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.”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.