Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[mhking]

Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving

Reported by Vic Gideon
POSTED: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:06:15 PM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:20:52 PM

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.

[mhking]

do not insure thru the same kind of folks that you do, and no they do not require me to have a license

So, may I presume that you do not have standard automotive insurance as required by the laws of the state in which your vehicle is registered (or is it actually registered?)?

[Carolinamom]

How can he be a practicing lawyer if he refused to take the oath?

[Under the Radar]

He is claiming to be a practicing lawyer right on this thread.

And?

Who's the bigger fool? Him for telling tales or us for believing him? You believe everything you read on the Internet?

And he himself said he spoke with the police during his wife's interrogation and said "It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel. "

Depending upon the laws of the state, he may be able to represent his spouse, even if he is not licensed. However, I will cede to anyone who cares to look this up-- it has been a long time since law school, and I am too lazy this late on a Friday afternoon.

[Howlin]

He can't.

[Howlin]

Perhaps you should scroll back through the thread; I haven't seen anybody who believes him yet.

[Carolinamom]

Legalisms aside, that CHILD was endangered. Poor baby.

[Catspaw]

Supreme Court of Ohio/Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law

 

What is the "unauthorized practice of law?"

Gov. Bar R. VII, Sec. 2(A) defines the unauthorized practice of law as the "rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not granted active status under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule XI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio." The definition of the unauthorized practice of law is further developed on a case-by-case basis by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

[Under the Radar]

Perhaps you should scroll back through the thread; I haven't seen anybody who believes him yet.

You seemed pretty upset that he claimed to be a practicing lawyer, but I haven't seen one person yet who has even tried to verify that this guy is even the person he claims to be.

[mhking]

but I haven't seen one person yet who has even tried to verify that this guy is even the person he claims to be.

Touché - I'll admit to taking him at face value. I've got no reason to doubt him at this point.

[scott7278]

"They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state."

Never heard that one before -- I guess that allows you to go the speed limit of your home state, too.

"Well, the sign said 55 but it's 70 back home, Officer!"

[mhking]

I guess that allows you to go the speed limit of your home state, too.

So does that mean there's no speed limit if I'm from Montana?

[RgnadKzin]

The people do not have a right to "representation by an attorney," they have a right to "assistance of counsel." There were very few practicing attorneys at the time the Constitution was written, and also you can look at the original Judiciary Act of 1787 that preceeded the addition of the right to counsel in the bill of rights.

The legal community, however, has foisted itself up upon a pedestal and created an oligarchy.

For a really good "treatise" on assistance of counsel and unauthoritized practice of law, see Michigan State Bar v Cramer.

Essentially, attorneys are regulated because they hold themselves out as a public accomodation for the purpose of selling legal services. That is not what I am doing.

Technically, I am interposing myself between my family and the fiction of law known as the state. Under my right to Free Exercise and the principle of coverture that my family practices, this is perfectly lawful (and it gives prosecuting attorneys fits).

So I am not representing my wife. According to our faith, she can perform no public act without my express authority. Accordingly, any transgression she performs is though I performed it. Because I accept responsibility for her public acts, only I can be punished for them. Also, no one can punish her but me. I do not give permission for her to participate in this proceeding other than giving testimony.

Again, please do not flame me for our Free Exercise.

It has been fun, but I have something that I have to get to the one supreme Court of the United States on another matter.

[Under the Radar]

Gov. Bar R. VII, Sec. 2(A) defines the unauthorized practice of law as the "rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio...

You will have lots of fun trying to prove that a husband "rendered legal services" to his wife by giving her legal advice, bad though it may be. You might succeed, but it would be difficult.

[scott7278]

I guess so. I'm moving to Montana -- what a perk!

[RgnadKzin]

I am sorry for your loss, but I fail to see how that is pertinent to my own situation. Again, I have only been involved in one accident in 30 years. And she has never been involved in an accident.

[dighton]

It gets better and better.

[Howlin]

Sure.

[justshe]

Curious that he would hear about a thread discussing his wife on Free Republic too. And then feel the need to register in order to defend her.

And he seems to be VERY familiar with the protocol...when he tells people to 'read back on the thread' or to 'check post #xx' for clarification.

The plot sickens.

[RgnadKzin]

That is an inaccuracy of reporting for which I am not responsbile.

[Catspaw]

Post #172 is a keeper, oh yeah!