Maine Supreme Court: Father Cannot Help Son Fight Traffic Ticket

The Newspaper

Cops can play the role of prosecutor in a Maine traffic court, but a dad cannot help his son fight a ticket. 

A father who wanted to represent his teenage son while fighting a traffic ticket will not be allowed to do so under a ruling handed down Thursday by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. On July 4, 2016, Benjamin J. Rupert had been pulled over at U.S. Route 1 and Old Blue Point Road in Scarborough. Officer Melissa DiClemente accused the eighteen-year-old of exceeding the 35 MPH speed limit and “failure to maintain control.”   

When the case came before a Portland District Court judge, Rupert filed a motion asking to be able to represent himself with the assistance of his father. The judge refused to allow the dad to play any role in the proceedings because he does not have a law license.

Once the trial resumed, the judge sided with the testimony of Officer DiClemente and imposed a $300 penalty on the young driver. Rupert appealed, but the state’s highest court was no more sympathetic to his cause.

“Contrary to Rupert’s contention, there is no legal authority in Maine — constitutional or otherwise — that creates a right for him to be represented in this matter by a person, not licensed to practice law in Maine, who would not merely provide silent support, but would act as an advocate — to participate, in other words, as a licensed attorney would,” Justice Jeffrey L. Hjelm wrote for the court.

Prior to 1931, it was legal for “any citizen of good moral character” to represent an individual in court, even without being a member of the Maine bar. The legislature deleted that exception to protect lawyers from unlicensed competition.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, individuals have the right to “the assistance of counsel” for their defense in court. Rupert pointed out that the police officer, who has no law license either, is allowed to play the role of a prosecutor in court on the state’s behalf. The justices saw no constitutional violation because the state made the traffic ticket a civil, not criminal matter.

“Therefore, contrary to Rupert’s contention, no fundamental right was affected by the court’s denial of his request to be represented by his father, and consequently the application of the statutory provision allowing the law enforcement officer, who was not a licensed attorney, to represent the state did not rise to the level of an equal protection violation,” Justice Hjelm concluded. “Because Rupert has not identified any federal or state constitutional provision, statute, or common law authority contravened by the court when it denied his request to be represented by a person not authorized to practice law in Maine, we affirm the judgment.”

A copy of the ruling is available in a 60k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:   Maine v. Rupert (Maine Supreme Court, 8/17/2017)

The Newspaper

4 thoughts on “Maine Supreme Court: Father Cannot Help Son Fight Traffic Ticket

  1. Dad showed up in the Admiralty court as the STRAWMAN, or Beneficiary of the CORPORATE Trust that bears a name similar to his own. He did NOT attend the proceedings as a living man, therefore he was unable to move in that world of COMMERCE effectively, not having awareness of Who He Really Is.

    He attempted to RE-PRESENT his Son’s STRAWMAN before the (presumed) Primary TRUSTEE over that Trust (the “Judge”). Not being a living soul, the “COURT” could not “see” him, ergo it denied access to NO ONE. As insane as this sounds, it is actually the way this DE FACTO CORPORATION known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA operates. It’s the Matrix of fraud and deceit that utilizes the LATCHES resulting from people entering into CONTRACT with the CORPORATION through all the Certificates, Licenses & Accounts that are “required” to function inside that Matrix. It does not matter (to the CORPORATION) that people do not have full disclosure and are being defrauded and enslaved, as long as the rubes “VOLUNTARILY” enter into those contracts. Outside their ethereal world, they have no “Legal” recourse over living souls, because living souls exist in God’s Real world and are NOT part of that fictional Matrix.

    Had the Son attended the proceedings as the Paramount Interest Holder over the STRAWMAN Trust that bears a NAME similar to his own, he would have, (had he overstood the proceedings), prevailed.

  2. “The legislature deleted that exception to protect lawyers from unlicensed competition.”

    Because licenses don’t come cheap.

    Thieving scumbags!

  3. William Bill Foust and The District of Columbia Act 1871…takes it further …too bad he was shot dead in 2011 but still on Youtube! And the gold in America being made illegal to possess on March 9 1933 this country has forever since been under military rule and court rulings before that date are not allowed in trials. Erie Railroad vs. Tomkins 1938. Bare Foots World Who Really Runs America ….a human being Blacks Law dictionary by definition is a monster…the swinging gate in a court represents stepping onto a ship for Admiralty law…at last resort the judge can be dressed as a high prIest of
    Baal. Padelford + Fay vs.. Mayor Savanah ruling 1854….Citizen not a party to the Constitution. Words and legalize TRICKS! Throw the *** down the well.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*