Prsrt.

Std
U.S. Postage
PAID
Worcester, MA
Permit No. 2

LEGAL
BRIEF
ROBERT A. GEORGE, ESQ.
STURBRIDGE ATTORNEY
M O N T H LY L E G A L A D V I C E
FO R REA DERS O F
THE STURBRIDGE TIMES MAGAZINE
THE ROUTES TO
LOSING ONE’S
DRIVER’S LICENSE
T he right to drive may seem to some as sacred as
the right to speak freely. But it is actually consid-
ered a privilege and, as such, the Commonwealth has
reserved for itself the very powerful right to take away
your license for almost any reason it wants.
In fact, the Commonwealth has 77 different justi-
fications for yanking a person’s license.
Most people know someone who lost their license
because they got in too many speeding tickets or acci-
dents, or they were driving drunk. You can also lose
your license for drag racing, cheating on your driving
test or defrauding your insurance company.
Maybe these reasons make some sense. At least
they have something to do with driving a car. But
given the necessity of being able to drive in today’s
world, many of the other reasons seem arbitrary and
punitive.
You can lose your license if your friend in the pas-
senger seat tosses trash out the window, or if you don’t
pay a fine, or if you don’t tell the Commonwealth
when you move to a new home.
The Commonwealth can even revoke your license
if someone says you don’t drive well. This provision in
the law can be used by the Commonwealth to revoke
the licenses of elderly people who are accused, with-
out any independent evidence, of driving erratically.
Fortunately, free speech is still free, so you can
always call your local representative if you think driv-
ing should be a little freer too.
And now a few words
from our sponsors ...
“Out of all the print advertising we’ve
done, we’ve definitely received the most
hits off of our ad in The Sturbridge Times
Magazine.”
— Paul Dyer, Body Dezines
Call 508.347.7077 for more information
22 THE STURBRIDGE TIMES MAGAZINE
J MUSINGS FROM LONG HILL
IN LAW, LESS IS MORE ... MORE OR LESS
BY RICHARD MURPHY
O
n the 24th of July a congressman created a
small controversy by telling an obvious
truth. The Honorable John Conyers (D-
MI) told America that he and his colleagues did not
read the bills they passed. “I love these members, they
get up and say, ’Read the bill,’” said Conyers. “What
good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you
don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it
means after you read the bill?” he said.
So the health reform bill, that Mr. Conyers supports,
is over 1000 pages. It did not start there. The Patriot
Act was well over a hundred. The TARP (bailout) bill
over 150 pages. Do you think they read those bill?
More likely they told their staff to summarize it for
them.
We constituents are paying our solons $174,000 plus
benefits to not read bills. My first reaction was, I can
do that job.
Reaction turned to indignation, however, when I
realized there was no way I could get that “work.” Also,
I knew as a citizen there is an obligation to think of the
welfare of the whole polity.
It was at that point I decided to call on the services
of the Long Hill Institute of Public Policy (LHIPP). In
the April, 2009 Musings From Long Hill, We organized
LHIPP as our official think tank and promptly solved
all the nations economic problems. Unfortunately, no
one in government took up our suggestions and thus we
languish in recession. No matter. LHIPP will take up
legislative reform and offer to help our Congress to get
to the point where they can both read and understand
what they vote on.
At this point, I know my readers are smiling at my
naiveté. How presumptuous of me to believe I can
effect that miracle. In truth, I would never claim to be
able to work such magic on my own. No, I appeal to
GEORGE AND DAVIS, PC
508-347-7114
509 Main Street, Sturbridge
15 Lincoln Street, Brookfield
Your local law firm since 1973.
• Real Estate • Bankruptcy
• Estate Plans • Divorce
• Corporate/Business • Criminal
Robert A. George, Esq.
Karen E. Davis, Esq.
Complicated Laws
Common Language
www.regeorge.net
J
one of the great literary figures of our civilization.
Jonathan Swift wrote what may be the greatest book
on government and politics ever written.
Unfortunately, most of the world thinks Gulliver’s
Travels merely children’s literature. We always have in
our minds the illustration of Gulliver being tied down
by the Lilliputians.
Swift did not write a child’s book. He was writing for
an adult audience about problems of state. Many of the
situations he described persist into our time.
In Part II, Chapter VII, A Voyage to Brobdingnag
(the giants) Gulliver tries to instruct the king in the
practices of English political art. His Majesty is not
impressed. The comparison is not in the Brit’s favor.
According to their king, the Brobdingnagian theory of
government is as related by Gulliver,
“He confined the Knowledge of Governing within
very narrow Bounds; to common Sense and Reason, to
Justice and Lenity, to the speedy Determination of civil
and criminal Causes; with some other obvious Topicks,
which are not worth considering. And, he gave it for his
Opinion, that whoever could make two Ears of Corn, or
two blades of Grass to grow upon a Spot of Ground
where only one grew before, would deserve better of
Mankind, and do more essential Service to his Country
than the whole Race of Politicians put together.”
I don’t think we come off any better than Old
England as well.
But, as much as I was struck by the common sense
government of Brobdingnag, It was in my capacity rep-
resenting LHIPP that I found the true diamond in Dean
Swifts magnum opus.
“No Law of that Country must exceed in Words the
Number of Letters in their Alphabet, which consists
only of two and twenty. But, indeed, few of them extend
even to that Length. They are expressed in the most
plain and simple Terms, wherein those People are not
mercurial enough to discover above one Interpretation:
And to write a Comment upon any Law is a capital
Crime. As to the Decision of civil Causes, or
Proceedings against Criminals, their Precedents are so
few, that they have little Reason to boast of any extraor-
dinary Skill in either.”
Now there are advantages and disadvantages to
adopting an “honesty in legislation” rule as above. First
and foremost would be, “what you see is what you get”
with any law. Second, Supreme Court sessions would
last, oh maybe an hour and a half, not merely because a
comment would court execution. Limiting verbiage in
legislation would lead anyone trying to interpret mere-
ly on their own biases to look the fool. Not that that
has not happened, but with few words, it would not be
as easy.
The disadvantages would be any complex legislation
would not happen. Yeah, you won’t see a health care
act.
Still, we at LHIPP feel it is important to start some-
where. You think bills are not going to get bigger? If we
don’t stop this now, we shall someday see Congress pass
the National Anti Jaywalking and Litter Control
Statute running to 10,000 pages.
THE CHRONICLE OF STURBRIDGE COUNTRY LIVING