Parking Tickets and the “Consent of the Governed”

[John Edward Mercier]

The local stores could reacquire the space... most likely by simply asking. But they would be responsible for maintenance.
Currently either the municipal tax payer or the user must pick up this cost.

They could even buy a piece of property and make a parking lot for their shoppers... like Russ said 'WalMart does it', and lets RVs park overnight for free.

[Russell Kanning]

so .... about The Shire parking tickets for the meter maid

[pinkiemarie]

so .... about The Shire parking tickets for the meter maid

I'd like an update too, but he may not have one yet.

[FTL_Ian]

Update:
http://freekeene.com/2008/04/04/parking-tickets-and-the-consent-of-the-governed-part-2/

You may recall that about a month ago I sent a letter to the BUREAU OF PARKING asking them to provide me with evidence of the agreement that I signed consenting to be subject to their parking fines. They were given 10 business days to reply, and did not. So, I have decided to give them one last chance to provide me with proof of obligation to pay their fines. This time, I am sending the following letter via certified mail to the head of the BUREAU OF PARKING, Ginger Reyes:

    April 03, 2008
    GINGER REYES
    KEENE POLICE DEPARTMENT
    BUREAU OF PARKING
    400 Marlboro Street
    Keene, NH 03431-4336

    Ms. Reyes,
    On February 28th, 2008, I hand delivered a letter to your department acknowledging the receipt of a "CITY OF KEENE PARKING TICKET" # 60220797.

    I made it clear that it is not my intention now, nor has it ever been my intention to defraud anyone. If in fact, I owe such an amount to your agency, I will pay it.

    I then requested that someone from your agency provide me with evidence of the valid, original contract with my signature binding me to said obligation. Your agency was given 10 business days to respond, and it appears that your BUREAU OF PARKING representatives have chosen not to provide me with proof of obligation.

    In fact, it has been much longer than 10 days. As I understand it, the lack of response puts your agency in dishonor, meaning that my claim is valid:

    There is no contractual authority for your agency to demand such a "fine" and that I am not obligated to pay any "fine", with no legal repercussions for any perceived "failure" to do so.

    It is certainly possible that one of your agents discarded my earlier message, so I wanted to bring this directly to your attention. As it is my intention to live in peace and harmony with others, I would like to give you another two weeks to respond with the proof of obligation that I requested in my last letter. If I do not receive the requested proof from you or one of your agents by the end of April 18th, 2008, I will know that my claim is valid. Send your reply via registered mail to the address below, or fax it to XXX-XXX-XXXX.

    Please note that any correspondence is subject to being posted on the blog at FreeKeene.com

    Sincerely,
    Ian Bernard
    (my address)

Now that I have addressed one of the bureaucrats personally, will she respond? Is this a government by the consent of the governed or is it just a gang of thugs? Time will tell.

[Tom Sawyer]

 

[TackleTheWorld]

Quite a magnanimous gesture.

[John Edward Mercier]

A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

[flaherty]

A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

isn't this a redress of grievances? by not responding are they (the government) not required to abide to their own laws and constitution?

[srqrebel]

Good job, Ian!

[Caleb]

A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

How so? You state that there is an "implied original contract".  What has Ian done that would imply such a thing? Since it's so vague, it would seem that the government's case could only be strengthened by demonstrating it.

That is, unless there is no contract, implied or otherwise ... then, yeah, they are morally up shit creek without a paddle, and they are merely resting their authority on the principle of "might makes right", not on the principle of "consent of the governed."

[John Edward Mercier]

He parked where there was a meter. Implying knowledge that the space was not free, but had a rental cost.
No, government agencies are told to make no comments... if, and when, it goes to court... then they answer.

[FTL_Ian]

He parked where there was a meter. Implying knowledge that the space was not free, but had a rental cost.
No, government agencies are told to make no comments... if, and when, it goes to court... then they answer.

If the meter & space were actually owned by a private individual or business, I would agree and would have paid.

In this case, the property in question is unowned.  If I am wrong, perhaps you could identify the owner?

[d_goddard]

perhaps you could identify the owner?

City of Keene, New Hampshire, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, of 3 Washington Street, Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire



This is like watching a chess game between someone with a 2300 rating, and an 8-year old who thinks he's slick because he just learned about en passant.

[FTL_Ian]

Criminal gangs aren't legitimate owners as everything they possess has been stolen.

[Coconut]

This is like watching a chess game between someone with a 2300 rating, and an 8-year old who thinks he's slick because he just learned about en passant.

Is Ian the 8 year old?