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.

[Howlin]

Ain't that the truth.

[Catspaw]

It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel.

What's your Bar number and in which state are you a practicing lawyer?

[mhking]

Have you ever breastfed?

[Looking down at my flat chest and (finally!) shrinking beer gut]...Uh, no?

The point is that the act takes your full attention from the road. And yes, using your analogy, we're all just as guilty when we go to the drive-thru at McDonald's or Starbucks.

[Howlin]

It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel.

Judging from your posts, I'd be willing to bet the police had every reason to be upset with your wife; I imagine she began spouting her "rights" as soon as she rolled down the window.

I do find it interesting that she had specifically researched the laws to find out just how much she could legally get away with though.

[Catspaw]

What's a "calling counsel?" Ya gotta wonder if this poster is licensed to practice law or if the poster only practices law by phone.

[Carolinamom]

the law officer...was far better than others she had encountered before.

So she has habitually done this?

[mhking]

What's your Bar number and in which state are you a practicing lawyer?

DING!

[The "Visitor's" side of the scoreboard lights up...]

[cjshapi]

The original article posted states she was traveling from Michigan to Pittsburgh, but in this post you state she was traveling to Michigan for a symposium of forensic toxicologists.

Can you please explain which was the case? Do you live in Pittsburgh or Michigan?

[Howlin]

LOL.....evidently!

I wonder how much money she's received from lawsuits!

[Under the Radar]

I could be wrong, but this story is starting to smell to me like she's one of those nutbags that uses affidavits because having a driver's license is the "mark of the beast." The fact that she and her husband did "extensive research on the law" about simply having a driver's license and claim that driving on an interstate means only the laws from their "home" state apply to them sends up a red flag to me.

So, because the woman fully informed herself of the laws she is forced to live under, that is a red flag?

Look, don't get me wrong. I think the woman is a maroon, too. However, I am surprised to see FReepers posting things suggesting that a person who is fully informed of her rights is somehow suspect. I applaud her efforts at research, even though I hope she loses this.

[RgnadKzin]

M: Subsection D has nothing to do with any danger to others in other vehicles.

I am sorry that you misinterpret what you read. It says that a child not in restraint cannot be used in ANY other criminal or civil action as a cause for negligence.

M: I submit (as I did earlier) that your wife's actions endangered other motorists and passengers in other vehicles driving on the Turnpike.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but you are legally incorrect.

M: You don't care whether or not your child is injured in an accident potentially caused by this? Fine.

You presume something that you should not. I do care. I simply choose to live my life without being afraid of what might be. Your own parents (depending upon your age) must have been similarly uncaring or negligent due to there being no restraints of any kind.

M: But I'll be damned if you end up hurting any of my friends or loved ones by your wife's negligence.

Again, it cannot be held to be negligence, nor can it be used as evidence of same. The Ohio legislature has decided that it is not. Your feelings on the matter do not change this. I promise to conduct myself upon the public way with due care and consideration of your safety. I have been in only one accident in my 30 years of travelling and have yet to be found culpable for damages.

M: You want to take the libertarian tact? No problem. But that means you have to be prepared to bear the brunt of the full weight of the law when it comes down after such an event (God forbid it happens - I would not wish such a thing on anyone, but the chances of an accident rise dramatically when you remove your full attention from the road for whatever purpose, be it yammering on a cellphone or feeding a baby).

I am always prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. That is the meaning of self-government. If I harm you, then I am obligated to make you whole. If I cannot, then I will indenture myself to you.

Nursing a child takes no more attention than checking a rear view mirror.

M: And again, to demand that officers carry complete case and statute law and be able to review it on demand is not only unreasonable, but both unsafe and not practical.

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."

M: Add to that your wife's failure to carry a driver's license; your citation of religious grounds is not a logical reason. The laws of all states clearly state that you be granted a license to drive; said license indicates that you have passed appropriate state tests of both your vision and driving knowledge (in some states the latter can be waived, provided you are already in good standing). This license grants you the privledge to drive a motor vehicle. If you choose not to fulfill the requirements of obtaining said license, then you've got no business on the road, period.

Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right. Travel is intimate to liberty. You want the breakdown on this? Fine.

US v Guest, Edwards v California - interstate travel is a right.

Wabash v Illinois - states cannot tax interstate commerce, and private travel substantively affects interstate commerce.

US v Lopez - any private activity that substantive affects interstate commerce is under exclusive control of Congress.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No state shall enter into any interstate compact or agreements without consent of Congress.

The states participate in interstate compacts for motor vehicle registration and driver's licensing.

The consent of Congress in this matter is found at 49 USC chapter 313 and no other place. This consent governs "commercial" vehicles only.

In Michigan, the authority to enter into these interstate agreements says:

MCL 3.163 Authority to make reciprocal agreements and compacts.
§ 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the board may enter into and make such reciprocal compacts, agreements or arrangements as the board deems proper or expedient and in the interests of the people of this state, with the proper authorities of other jurisdictions, either individually or with a group of jurisdictions, concerning the fees, charges, taxation, operation and regulation of trucks, tractors, trailers, automobiles, buses, and all other automotive equipment _engaged in international, interstate or intrastate commerce upon and over the public highways_. History: 1960, Act 124, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 1960

What does the corresponding statute in your state say?

M: This religious affadavit that you mention is no substitute for a license granted you by the state in which you live. If you refuse to obtain any of the appropriate required documents necessary for being awarded a license, then you don't get one, period.

Congress has no power to compel me to participate in godless socialism. It is repugnant to my faith. There is no federal statute that requires me to apply for an SSAN. If the states are going to require an SSAN of "resident" aliens before they are licensed, fine. I am not a "resident" alien. Look back in this thread and find the reference to the Fong decision. Then take the time to read it. See then that it is "resident" aliens that are being regulated and not people born into a land of presumed liberty.

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. Driving is a privilege for commercial entities that are common carriers for hire of goods or passengers.

My plate says "Not for Hire, Private Property, No Trespassing"

M: That being the case, you don't get to drive. Sorry.

If you want to pick nits, then I technically am conveying my personal property upon the public easements that we grant to each other for access and egress.

[RgnadKzin]

Because it takes about 50 minutes to feed her. She cannot make her appointment otherwise. She cannot get the expert witness she needs to bring a rapist to justice.

[RgnadKzin]

I cannot take the bar oath. It is contrary to my faith; reference Matthew, Chapter 5 and James, Chapter 5. See also the Dortrecht Confession of faith, 1620.

[Howlin]

I am always prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.

Why do I have the feeling that you and the little woman have "done the research" and know exactly just how little those consequences might be.

Do you have car insurance? Or is that against your religion, too?

[Catspaw]

Are you licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction?

[RgnadKzin]

They have to first identify themselves and then give probable cause for a stop.

I require them to identify themselves because there are many cases of police impersonation. There was a cop that was convicted of forcing a woman to have sex with him in the back of his cruiser just last week in that same area.

I then ask them who they are looking for. If they do not know, then I tell them I am sorry that I cannot help them.

I then ask them if they are conducting a criminal investigation (Brown v Texas). If they say it is criminal, then I ask them if they will punish me if I exercise my right to remain silent. (Miranda v Arizona)

They generally say no, this is a traffic stop.

I then ask them if I say or do anything that I might reasonably calculate could lead to criminal charges if I may exercise my right to be free from self incrimination (Blau v US).

I then ask them if I am free to go.
Generally, they say yes.

If not, I get arrested and deal with it.

You are only entitled to those rights that you are willing to agressively pursue.

[Under the Radar]

Destined-to-be-a-classic-thread Alert!

[justshe]

"My plate says "Not for Hire, Private Property, No Trespassing"."


So you do NOT register your vehicle? What about car insurance? Isn't current registration required to insure your vehicle? Isn't a current driver's license required to insure your vehicle? Do Michigan or Ohio (this is your state of residence?)state law require car insurance?

I know these questions are a bit off topic...but I am curious.

[Howlin]

She should have left earlier then; or she should have left the baby with a sitter and fed her a bottle.

50 minutes? She needs more practice judging from my stepdaughters.

And how can you be "acting" as lawyer for your wife, over the phone, which you yourself claimed up the thread, if you're not licensed anywhere as a lawyer?

[RgnadKzin]

The original article is incorrect. I lived in Michigan a couple years back. She is from Michigan. She owns property there.

I came to Pennsylvania for a six month contract that has turned into a 2 1/2 year stint. They like my work. She lives where I live.

However, I have no expectation that I will be here any length of time. I am going to California this evening for a job interview. So that is where I will be next, most likely. Don't know how long, only that it will take a big truck to move 12 bookcases of law books.