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!


28 Comments

  1. 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 ?

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

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. Did your Moms ever have you tested?

  10. I applaud Judge Spath on her patients with this idiot!!! I am however disappointed she suspended his sentence, he’s just manipulative to be good JUST long enough to keep from paying the fine. Then he will go right back to endangering people so he can act like a horse’s butt again and waste SO much of others time and tax dollars.
    People wonder why we have the fighting and children being incredibly disrespectful. It’s because of these kind of situations and people.
    Somewhere something got messed up how did he become a state representative? Sad, sad, sad…

  11. The problem with say the USA is a chartered company under the UN back in 1789 is the slight fact that the United Nations NEVER EXISTED.

    And Netherlands was a country centuries before 1789, they were in the “USA” even though the USA didn’t exist at the time.
    .

  12. Meanwhile this guy has been driving his whole life and now suddenly he has a problem with paying registration fees and DL fees. I think I am going to buy a old beater and not register or insure it and find this guy and plow into it. When he comes out to look, I am going to say I wasn’t driving but I was traveling. See you later, deal with it.

  13. I saw the 3 videos. I am not an american. Those calling Mr. Marple as idiot’s do not understand freedom and do not value freedom. The least the judge should and could have done is to properly prove the jurisdiction and not carry on with the hegemony. Judiciary should always be accountable or else freedom is lost.

  14. I think the guy is on to something here. Lot of things don’t make sense like property tax. You PAID for it already. Why do have to keep paying a FEE on it? This strikes of communism that you can’t own private property.

    But getting back to travel, it really is a God-given right. But again, you have to pay a fee, all sorts of fees for them to regulate a right from God???

    Everything is done this way to remind you WHO is your real god. And they will TAX you to death and even in the afterlife on your progeny so you NEVER forget.

    They will be monkey beating on your back till the day you die… and them some.

  15. Dick Marple should of objected to the Definitions of the words being used, Traffic in Bouvier 1856 which the supreme court uses states that the word Traffic is commerce, the word operator is a person driving for profit, vehicle is a Vessel for transportation of goods, speed limit is an infraction and not breaking the law because it is Arbitrary in its self, a car can kill at one mile in hour as the same at 60 mph, but it is the intent of which it is used. So if the definitions where argued and the meaning is stated than there is no way it can be enforced on an individual doing traveling. He should of evoked his 5th Amendment right at the beginning of the traffic stop, than the State would not have any response for which he stated Dick Marple response to the question by the officer.

  16. I am confused about the licensing of vehicles or drivers.

    Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

    So under the previous rulings from the Supreme Court stating that one has a “right” to travel, and under Shuttlesworth Vs. Birmingham it was decided that the government cannot charge or create a license or a fee, and if the state converts your right into a privilege and issues said license and fee for it, you can ignore the license and the fee and engage in that right with impunity. So which is it, is traveling a right, if not then is it a privilege and if it is a privilege, what case supports the overturning of the Privileges and immunity clause and prior case law? If it is in fact a right, then where do the courts get the jurisdiction to claim that one must pay a fee for a license for said right?

    Just heard this argument, and did not know who was right…?

  17. I too applaud Mr. Marple, I would like to meet him personally one day, Im following all of his information as I am preparing to represent myself on a DLS in Vermont on 1/8/2017. If anyone from free keene sees this post tonight or sunday . Please feel free to contact me, The faster the better, to Mr. Marple my hats off to you sir, I do not have that much power under me other than what I’v learned and we are in dangerous times in this country. I will pray for you. I myslef have faith strong faith, I always feel like I am missing something in all this. I do know I have found the dmv to be fraudulent, racketeering, money laundering as well as the police and courts and that the courts are indeed into black market bond trading.

  18. 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.”

  19. philipen1000 has quoted from 100 year OLD,1905 & 1916,cases, long before those cases were overturned and the Uniform Commercial Code became the “Law of the Land” and lawful money was suspended in 1966. Read the Clearfield Doctrine and then understand that when government uses commercial paper to “discharge” its debts, all sovereignty is lost and government becomes a mere “corporation” standing in the same shoes as you. The New Hampshire supreme court has twice defined the “automobile” as non taxable “consumer goods”, pursuant to RSA382A::9-109.. See the latest 1967 supreme court case, 108 NH 386 where Chief justice Grimes confirmed the statute that it is the use of the goods purchased that determines its status and NOT the name. If car or truck is purchased and used for commercial purposes, ie. use of the highways for profit or gain, then it is defined as a “”motor vehicle”, which does require a license and taxation. Perhaps those of a different opinion may find it of interest in studying the current cases and statutes and not rely on overturned and revised statutes.

  20. A mans travel right is found in the Constitution under The Postal Routs Clause. If you look at your friendly red white and blue neighborhood mail truck there is no tag on the truck because it’s a Postal Rout. Postal Routs connected homes with other homes for delivery of mail. A mans home is found in the fourth Amendment and the postal Rout delvers to all home. The man moves freely from free point A to free point B.. If the man wants the post man to move something for him to a home he can pay a stamp tax like with a letter. The stamp tax is to service the Postal Routs upkeep not gas taxes. The Postal Routs must be funded because it is a right grant to have Freedom of Locomotion. Man travels on the Postal Rough with out a toll or tax stamp because you can not tax the right of freedom of movement for with out movement you have no freedom. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution proves this to be a right granted and agreed to by every state when the constitution was signed.. Therefore no state can deprive a man to use the Postal Routs when it is used to move his legs, his horse, his bike , his car or move any of his effects personally form free Point A to free Point B. The Postal Rout clause is the means used for freedom of locomotion with out a tax or toll. A tax or toll can only be applied for hire in commerce clause not for personal use.

  21. Marple was found guilty, as he should have been. It’s very, very sad that this website celebrates his invalid assaults on the court system.

  22. Anyone who makes pejorative comments concerning Mr. Marple are cowards and sheeple and wield a very dull intellectual instrument. It’s sad that you’re even allowed to speak or have an opinion. You obviously have no understanding of truth , but only or de facto propaganda and your security as a slave. ” one who gives up freedom for security deserves neither “Courage to stand up to tyranny is in short supply today.

  23. How are you guys so stupid you can’t see the differnce between Automobile and motor vehicle … judge grimms oc NH supreme court seems to not have a tough time expressing the difference in writing? Corporate feudalism is why we fought Revolutionary War.. you guys are either ignorant to history or just ignorant in general

  24. Going throught amost the exact same issue in Illiinois. My trial is Oct 30, 2018. I dont plan to attent fraud meeting. Hardest part is obtaining help from professional lawyers, who seems to want to side with law instead of the history that created it in the first place. Either a revelution is in the midst or our children are/will be a corporate slave.

  25. Man,.. I’ve always felt Government of any level here in USA is a scam!
    It’s all FUKN BULLSHIT!!!

  26. Anybody who thinks this guy is an idiot, are the idiots and you deserve to keep getting screwed by your government and should get your mothers to have you tested!! It’s the sheep like you who go with the flow and are good little robots and never question the system that was designed to serve and protect the rights you dumbasses so willing waive constantly. It mindless people like you who are quick to judge someone who is standing up, not only for his rights, but yours as well, without even educating yourselves to find out you don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about! Why don’t you read the Constitution for starters, then you wouldn’t sound so stupid when you’re defending the very government who has you enslaved. Or you can can continue to be the mindless idiots that you are and continue to have everyone of your rights eroded away like you deserve. The Constitution starts with “We The People” not we the government. Read it then if you want to continue to be a dumbass, thanks to this great document, you can.? Enuff said!

  27. All you people who cannot see the depth of deception here and all over the world are very dumb. Its in your face so much so that you do not see it. Go and look up Why your NAME is in all capital letters and does not have a middle name. Its a registered corporation done by the custodian at birth That custodian is FED RESERVE BANK. They OWN us and we accepted that we are debtors and not creditors . Btw your mother did it not YOU as you were not of age yet so essentially you never even approved of it in the first place . The law says that BOTH parties must KNOWINGLY enter into the contract and must be of age. RECLAIM your true creditor birth certificate and see that THEY have no jurisdiction whatsoever over a A Natural born citizen of the UNINCORPORATED United Sates of America and not a citizen of USA inc. All you learned smart lawyers and scholars are BLIND because you have bought into the lie and cannot see outside the fence . EVen you are part of that fence now to destroy whats left of this country . YOU WILL NOT WIN!.

  28. Dick marple = patriot

Care to comment?