Posted on 11/30/2015 7:09:10 AM PST by MichCapCon
Lisa Snyder’s neighbors had children and early starts at work. She was happy to watch their kids until the school bus arrived in the morning — until she was threatened with penalties for running an unlicensed child care service.
Alan Taylor needed more parking at his growing business and thought he had received all the proper permits to expand the lot on his property. But the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality successfully prosecuted him for jeopardizing a wetland he didn’t know existed.
Kenneth Schumacher got rid of some scrap tires at what turned out to be an unlicensed disposal facility. Though he didn’t intend to break the law, he was sentenced to 270 days in jail and a fine of $10,000.
Michigan has over 3,000 felonies and misdemeanors on the books — far more than the average resident could possibly remember. Obvious crimes, like murder or theft, make up some of these statutes, but more of them cover actions such as “transporting Christmas trees without a manifest†or burning grass clippings or leaves in certain areas.
These laws are especially dangerous to ordinary people because 26 percent of Michigan’s felonies and 59 percent of its misdemeanors don’t specify criminal intent. This means that people who never intended to break the law may be (and often are) prosecuted for crimes they had no idea they committed.
Charlie Owens, the head of the National Federation of Independent Businesses in Michigan, supports a bill that would ensure laws were clear on criminal intent.
“This is a serious concern for many small family-owned businesses that find themselves facing a criminal prosecution for minor paperwork violations or running afoul of a rule or regulation without any knowledge or intent to do wrong,†Owens said in a statement. “When you consider the absolute avalanche of rules and regulations heaped on a business owner by federal, state and local governments it should be no surprise that honest mistakes happen.â€
To fix this problem, the Michigan Legislature is considering adding intent provisions to laws that currently lack one, with two bills before the Senate Judiciary Committee. House Bill 4713 passed the state House unanimously and would establish that if a law does not indicate a “culpable mental state†the prosecution must show that a person violated a law “purposely, knowingly or recklessly.†This bill exempts certain sections of Michigan code.
Senate Bill 20 is similar, but would only apply to future laws. Because there are so many laws and regulations already, proponents of criminal intent reform prefer a bill that is strong going forward but also applies to laws on the books. Neither of these bills eliminates crimes; they merely clarify the standard of intent needed in a prosecution.
These reforms would not allow a Michigander to get out of a larceny charge by claiming ignorance of the law, but they would make it less likely for him to do jail time for catching a fish he didn’t realize was protected, or being smacked with hefty fines for failing to properly display a camping license on his tent.
I am a County Supervisor of a medium sized County in Arizona. One of my campaign promises was to take bad law off the books. This year, along with a committee from our local Tea Party Group, we are going to tackle the 6,000 page document that makes up our County ordinances and codes. I have the promise of assistance from our County Attorney and away we go. It will take time and effort, but I think it will be worth it.
When I was a kid, I remember my uncle solemnly telling me “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” ... and it sounded so .... wise or something..
Until I thought about it.
How can you be guilty of a crime you did not know existed?
Show me the code that says “you are guilty of a crime, even if you did know knowingly act to commit a crime” - Is there some legal language that codifies “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” or is it just something they say, to find people guilty? I want to see it in writing.
What happens when you go to court and tell them “how the hell was I supposed to know that was a law”????
With the tens of thousands of pages of laws on the books it is Impossible to know them all
Ignorance of the law MUST BE an excuse!
By doing this they collect fines and keep the normal, honest, law-abiding people in a state of submission. Meanwhile, police resources are not used to catch rapists, robbers and murderers.
This is an intended consequence of the lawmakers.
Good luck in your effort, it is a worthy cause.
Who’s got the Ayn Rand quote about the government needing to make more criminals?
You bring me the man, I will find the crime: Beria, NKVD head under Stalin.
Clinton Crime Family Foundation filed amended tax returns.
Oops, we made a mistake.
Turbo Tax Tim, Rangel, et.al.
It doesn't even have to be a law, but an administrative rule ( EPA uses those ) that have the same force of law. For one example, this is from the IRS concerning those that have overseas bank accounts ( even if you are living overseas and that account is your local account ). Each year , if the amount is over $10,000, you must file a FBAR form. The IRS doesn't inform those living overseas that they have to file this form. From the law :
Those required to file an FBAR who fail to properly file a complete and correct FBAR may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation for nonwillful violations that are not due to reasonable cause. For willful violations, the penalty may be the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the account at the time of the violation, for each violation.
They don't consider not knowing about the requirement to file as reasonable cause.
“... neighbors had children and early starts at work. She was happy to watch their kids until the school bus arrived in the morning †until she was threatened with penalties for running an unlicensed child care service.”
Sounds crazy.
But there is an important bit of info that is left out which is if she was paid by the neighbors.
I hope it’s my county!! GO HILDY!!!
And that, my friends, is the ultimate result of a government that has run amok and gotten too big - whether at the local, state or national level. As government/bureaucracy grows, it will ALWAYS strive to extend its reach into things that “need to be regulated”, thus making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Ask any cop and he/she will tell you that enforcing laws and regulations on otherwise law-abiding citizens is infinitely easier (and safer) than pursuing real criminals. Don’t go after gang bangers on the streets of Chicago; pull over a tourist with an NRA decal on his car and prosecute him for violation of Illinois (or New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc.) gun laws.
True, but there shouldn’t be an assumption that she was being paid.
Remember the spate of stories a couple years back about how Boy Scouts were getting in trouble because their volunteer projects (for earning Eagle) were infringing on the “rights” of people who were supposed to be paid for doing them?
There’s a somewhat common theme here that these laws make it harder for small and even medium-sized businesses, or even small time charitable operations including neighbors who are caring for their neighbors kids, possibly voluntarily, to stay in operation. The larger businesses having the ability to absorb the overhead associated with maintaining legal and regulatory staffs to avoid or deal with trouble that arises with breaking such laws.
IOW what we’re really seeing here is crony capitalism at work, funneling business to the big guy’s while making it increasingly impossible for the smaller guys to compete.
Wished you were here.
No rule of law had he defied.
But then their lawyer said:
The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It’s vastly more efficient.
Now, let me state the present rules.
The lawyer then went on,
These very simpIe guidelines
You can rely upon:
You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.
A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do, you see,
Then the market would be yours
And that’s monopoly!”
Price too high? Or price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren’t loath to charging both
With Public Good at stake! — R.W. Grant, “Tom Smith and the Incredible Bread Machine”
You've stated it in a nutshell: politicians make nanny-state cooing noises about "protecting" the children and then pass measures that don't do squat to add additional protection but do assist larger businesses by quashing competition.
For example, with the "licensed" child-care facilities, was there any increase in the number of inspectors? Probably not: the law was designed simply to shut-down informal child care arrangements and force people to use $700 month/per child government approved facilities.
Annnnnnddddddd ....
Wasn’t Michigan one of the states that tried to mandate unionization for home daycare providers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.