Posted on 06/19/2003 7:36:03 PM PDT by mhking
Edited on 06/23/2003 2:48:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.
Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.
"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.
Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.
"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."
A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.
"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.
At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.
The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.
They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.
The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.
Well, I guess that answers the questions we all had about why it is that this "couple" is in such habitual contact with the police.........LOL.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck. Adkins v. West Virginia Department of Education.
Why am I not surprised.
Insurance companies will not cover an unlicensed driver under any circumstances (this from the insurance agent with 30+ years experience that works in the office next door to me). Insurance companies require the potential insured to provide a valid driver's license to the insurance agent prior to issuing a policy.
He can advise his wife on the law without holding a bar card. He would encounter trouble trying to represent someone else, however, if he weren't licensed. However, I bet he knows more about this than you and I both. :^)
Oh, it's coming, I just know it :-))
Perhaps, perhaps not. That is a question of fact for a judge or jury to decide.
There existed probable cause for the police officer(s) to believe that a crime had occured, which is sufficient to make an arrest and begin criminal proceedings. Go to the prelim exam and try to shoot down the prosecutor's case. If you can convince the judge that there was no probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, then it ends there.
As are you, Your Honor, but from here, it looks like you are the one who is legally incorrect. But then again, that is for the judge to decide, not you, yes?
I have been in only one accident in my 30 years of travelling and have yet to be found culpable for damages.
And other than qualifying for lower insurance rates (or do you not qualify for automotive insurance?), that has nothing to do with your negligent behavior. My feelings have nothing to do with the matter. Your endangerment of others does.
Nursing a child takes no more attention than checking a rear view mirror.
Or yammering on a cell phone, I bet. Sorry. That doesn't wash.
Why is it unreasonable for me to require them to know the laws they are attempting to apply? If I am required to know the law, then why aren't they. Check Dueteronomy, chapter 19, starting at verse 15. If there are too many laws for them to remember (then there are too many laws), then bring the book. I carry the MV code of Michigan and Pennsylvania in my car just for this purpose. I ask them to read it and then ask them if I have violated it. Then I ask them if they will take the responsibility for their actions if they are found to be acting under "color of law."Firstly, I said explicitly that expecting them to carry around case and statute law is what is unreasonable. Their job does not include the interpretation of the law. That is left to the courts.
As for the passage you cite from Deuteronomy (One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses - Deu 19:15), firstly, that is man's law of the time. Secondly, that is not a part of case or statute law of either Michigan or Ohio.
You carrying statute law with you is immaterial and unnecessary. It is not incumbent upon a law-enforcement officer to consult your copies of legal documents upon demand. In other words, you are not in a position to make that demand on a traffic cop. And finally, is not "color of law" simply your interpretation of the law?
Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right. Travel is intimate to liberty.
No one's preventing your travel. If you choose not to follow the rules of the road, your privledge to operate a motor vehicle will be curtailed, and rightly so.
You're so wrapped up in case law, you can't see the forest for the trees. You can travel anywhere you want. But if you refuse to obtain an operator's license for your vehicle, then, when you drive on the public roadways, you are in violation of the law, period. All the case law in the land cannot ignore that immutable fact.
You are simply hiding behind case law to justify your blatant disregard of the laws of the land and the rules of the road.
There is no federal statute that requires me to apply for an SSAN.
You're right. And if you don't acquire one - as is your right - you forfeit your privledge to participate in aspects of our society that require a social security number to participate; being awarded a drivers' license falls in that category, and by extension, the privledge of driving also falls in that category.
I do not need the state's permission (or yours) to go to work, to go to the grocery, or to go see my Mom.
No one has denied your right to go where you want, when you want. But you are granted the privledge to operate a multi-ton motor vehicle on the public roads when you fulfill the requirements of the state in which you live, which include qualifying for an operator's license.
Bottom line: If you want to get a driver's license, and by extension, operate a motor vehicle, unless your state makes provision for such, you will need a social security number. If you choose not to get one (whether for religious or other grounds, it is still a choice), then by extension, you have chosen not to acquire a driver's license. You will have to find another way to get around.
There's always (as my dad told me when I was a youngster) "Pat & Turn" (Pat the pavement & Turn the corner)...
See post #118. He held himself out as her "counsel" ("calling counsel" to be precise) to law enforcement. That's a no-no:
I was present on the telephone and talked to the cops. It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.