Nobody Fights the State and Wins!

Nobody, your humble narrator, was handed a major victory today. Thanks in large part to excellent representation by my Public Defender, Robin Pisan, the State chose to drop three charges against me, one for Disobeying an Officer, one for driving on a suspended registration, and one for driving on a suspended license. I was not guilty of any of these offenses, the first was a case of mistaken identity, and the other two were not violations of the law, because driving on suspended whatever is only a crime when you know your license is suspended — or in legal jargon, the “Knowingly” mental state. In my case, I had not been in Keene, where I live, for months, and thus had not received any mail about my license.

But that does not mean that Justice has prevailed in these cases. Quite the opposite. Massive harm was done to me by the false arrests. It cost me …

Nobody Fights The State, and Wins!

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


20 Comments

  1. This is great news. Congratulations to Nobody.

  2. People have a bargaining chip , even if they are GOING CAUGHT RED HANDED.. AND IT’S A REAL good bargaining chip.. That is GOING TO COURT.. And pretending like you are going to be FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH! You can get good concessions with that good bargaining chip!. (i just did it too! like three days ago)

  3. I need to find out in which states you can go to court without paying (imo losing) . In NH you don’t have to PAY just to go to court. Like Vermont for instance you have to PAY just to go to court.

  4. Nobody has my vote!

  5. The word “knowingly” does not appear in the RSA any driving on suspended or revoked license

  6. RSA 263:64 Driving After Revocation or Suspension. –
    I. No person shall drive a motor vehicle in this state while the person’s driver’s license or privilege to drive is suspended or revoked by action of the director or the justice of any court in this state, or competent authority in the out-of-state jurisdiction where the license was issued.
    II. A person who drives a motor vehicle in this state while such person’s license or driving privilege is suspended or revoked shall be guilty of violating this section regardless of whether such person has a license on the effective date of such suspension or revocation. Evidence that the notice of suspension or revocation was sent to the person’s last known address as shown on the records of the division shall be prima facie evidence that the person was notified of the suspension or revocation.
    III. A person who obtains or possesses an out-of-state license after such person’s New Hampshire license or driving privilege has been revoked does not revive his or her driving privilege by having such out-of-state license, and such person shall be guilty of violating this section if he or she drives in the state while his or her New Hampshire license or driving privilege is suspended or revoked.
    IV. Any person who violates this section by driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle or by operating or attempting to operate an OHRV or snowmobile in this state during the period of suspension or revocation of his or her license or driving privilege for a violation of RSA 265:79 or an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this section by driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle or by operating or attempting to operate an OHRV or snowmobile in this state during the period of suspension or revocation of his or her license or driving privilege for a violation of RSA 265-A:2, I, RSA 265-A:3, RSA 630:3, II, RSA 265:82, or RSA 265:82-a or an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than 7 consecutive 24-hour periods to be served within 6 months of the conviction, shall be fined not more than $1,000, and shall have his or her license or privilege revoked for an additional year. No portion of the minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment shall be suspended by the court. No case brought to enforce this paragraph shall be continued for sentencing for longer than 35 days. No person serving the minimum mandatory sentence under this paragraph shall be discharged pursuant to authority granted under RSA 651:18, released pursuant to authority granted under RSA 651:19, or in any manner, except as provided in RSA 623:1, prevented from serving the full amount of such minimum mandatory sentence under any authority granted by title LXII or any other provision of law.
    V. Notwithstanding the definition of “revocation” in RSA 259:90 and the definition of “suspension” in RSA 259:107, the phrase “period of suspension or revocation” as used in paragraph IV and for purposes of paragraph IV only shall mean only suspension or revocation imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction. “Period of suspension or revocation” shall include the period specifically designated and until the restoration of the person’s driver’s license or privilege to drive.
    V-a. (a) Except as provided in subparagraph (b), any person who drives a motor vehicle in this state during the period of suspension or revocation of his or her license or driving privilege and is involved in a collision resulting in death or serious bodily injury, as defined in RSA 625:11, VI, to any person, shall be guilty of a class B felony, where such person’s unlawful operation of the motor vehicle caused or materially contributed to the collision. Evidence that the driver violated any of the rules of the road shall be prima facie evidence that the driver caused or materially contributed to the collision.
    (b) A person violating this section whose license or driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provisions of RSA 263:14 only shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    VI. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor upon conviction based upon a complaint which alleged that the person has had one or more prior convictions for driving after revocation or suspension in this state within the 7 years preceding the date of the second or subsequent offense.
    VII. Except as provided in paragraphs IV, V-a, and VI, any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation, and shall be fined a minimum of $250 for a first offense and $500 for a second or subsequent offense.

  7. “i don’t know if ANY of that battery of text that mist r r fact checking wants us to read … answers that question… usually the answers to questions is a sentence.. or less…

  8. i know pleading insanity… is only won if the person didn’t know they were doing wrong so… there’s that… then there’s the crap “ignorance of the law blah blah blah”

  9. Committing a crime requires criminal intent. That is universal in feature of criminal law.

  10. Most people that “break laws” aren’t guilty of committing an actual crime.

  11. i don’t think criminal intent is a phrase

  12. You seemed to have adopted the freekeene mentality. Not guilty even if found guilty by a jury of your peers.

  13. Now, now Jacks, you’ve been trolling here long enough to know perfectly well what Bob is talking about. You see, we liberty-minded people have no problem with consenting adults going peacefully about their business. It’s a shame you busybodying types don’t have the same level of consideration the rest of us have, isn’t it pookums?

  14. Fact Checking: There are statutes and then there is case law. Not everything is as it is written which is why you hire a lawyer. This can be the difference between being found guilty and not.

  15. It’s not false arrest if your license actually was suspended. Moreover, the costs you incurred were a result of your failure to act responsibly. A reasonable person would have arranged to get your mail forwarded or else arranged to have a trusted person watch for important documents like notices of suspension. There’s no liberty without personal responsibility.

  16. Horsepucky, AEM. Being forced to plan anyone’s life around services that no one wants or needs only makes the case for subservience, not personal responsibility. What sort of liberty do you think you have under an arrangement where obedience is required by your tormentors, even when you’re far, far away from them?

  17. If one wants to drive on the roads, one has a duty to help pay for the upkeep of those roads. Hence, registration fees.

  18. Boulderdash, DK. That tired, old mission statement regarding government ownership of roads has long since devolved from the basic stewardship we were originally promised into endless nickel and diming for licenses, registrations, plates, inspections, tolls and anything else they can think of. And don’t forget about the forced stops we must endure – where we’re always under the threat of having our personal property and vehicles stolen. What we have to put up with versus what we get out of it isn’t an equitable arrangement by any standard of measure.

  19. Despotic Keene: Your ignoring the fact that there were roads long before governments got involved. Many of the roads in the US actually follow old indian trails. Even to the extent that there is an argument for government roads the system for collecting funds to cover the costs doesn’t add up. They throw a significant portion of the funds raised through tolls, registration fees, and other taxes away explicitly because the variety of systems in places to collect those funds have a HUGE cost to doing them and then have to be multiplied for each new system implemented to collect. You can’t argue for property taxes and then say we need tolls to cover the roads. All that does is increase the cost of covering the roads because now you have yet another system that has to be paid for that’ll eat 33% if the money collected before it gets spent on the roads.

Care to comment?