Skip to comments.New Hampshire AG's Office Threatens Arrest over Unlicensed Manicure
Posted on 05/01/2005 6:15:12 AM PDT by mvpel
Michael Fisher, in an act of civil disobedience, plans at noon on May 9 to give a manicure for profit without a license in front of the office of the New Hampshire Board of Barbering & Cosmetology in Concord.
This has apparently caused some consternation at the New Hampshire Attorney General's office, which has asked the court for an injunction:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIMACK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
The State of New Hampshire V. Michael B. Fisher
PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire, by and through its attorneys, the Office of the Attorney General, and hereby requests the Court to order Michael Fisher be restrained and prohibited from engaging in the unlicensed practice of barbering, cosmetology, or esthetics as defined in RSA 313-A:l in violation of New Hampshire laws on Monday, May 9th, 2005. The petitioner asserts the following in support of this petition:
1. Upon information and belief, in violation of RSA 313-A:9, I, Michael Fisher will engage in the practice of barbering or cosmetology or esthetics without the appropriate license on Monday, May 9th, 2005.
2. Upon information and belief, in violation of RSA 313-A:9, II, Michael Fisher will operate a salon that is not under the direct supervision or management of a professional licensed under RSA chapter 313-A on Monday, May 9th, 2005.
3. Upon information and belief, in violation of RSA 313-A:9, III, Michael Fisher will hire or employ an unlicensed person or persons to engage in the practice of barbering or cosmetology or esthetics on Monday, May 9 2005.
4. Upon information and belief, in violation of RSA 313-A:9, V, Michael Fisher will engage in the instruction of barbering or cosmetology or esthetics without holding a license as required by RSA chapter 313 - A, on or before Monday, May 9th, 2005.
5. Upon information and belief, the threatened activities, if implemented could be in violation of state and city regulations pertaining to public demonstration.
6. The petitioner is the State of New Hampshire, by and through its attorneys, the Office of the Attorney General, with offices located at 33 Capitol Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, acting under the authority of RSA 21-M:2, II and RSA 21-M:5, 1.
7. The respondent Michael Fisher is an individual person. The return address on the envelope mailed on April 23, 2005 states that his address is 362 Great Bay Woods, Newmarket, New Hampshire 03857 but, upon information and belief, his current address is 7 Lamprey River Park, Newmarket, New Hampshire 03857.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to, inter alia, 498: 1. The petitioner is principally located in Merrimack County. The respondent is an individual who resides in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Venue lies in Merrimack County. RSA 507:9. The threatened unlawful acts would occur in Merrimack County at 2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord.
Facts and Claims
9. On or about April 25, 2005, the New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology, and Esthetics (the Board") received a letter from the respondent which stated as follows:
It is my pleasure to announce to you that I will be breaking New Hampshire's professional licensing laws on Monday, May 9, at noon, in front of your offices at 2 Industrial Park Drive, in Concord. At this time, I will set up a booth and sell manicures for profit without a license until I am forced to stop.
Letter from Mike Fisher, Exhibit A.
10. On or about April 28, 2005, an investigator from the Office of the Attorney General telephoned the respondent and notified him that if he engaged in the practice of barbering, cosmetology, or esthetics in violation of New Hampshire laws on Monday, May 9th 2005, he would be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor in accordance with RSA 313-A:9. The respondent responded that he was still intending to engage in such practice.
11. Upon information and belief, the respondent has sent a "press release" to various media outlets containing the following:
The general public and supporters are invited to attend this event of civil disobedience. The event will be held on Monday, May 9, at noon, at or near the NH Board of Cosmetology at 2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH 03301. Attendees are asked to bring their friends, families, cameras, anti-licensing signs, and positive attitudes.
Fisher Press Release, Exhibit B.
12. The respondent is not licensed pursuant to RSA chapter 313-A.
13. Upon information and belief, the respondent has not completed an application thirty (30) days prior to the event, nor has the respondent obtained the requisite permit from the City of Concord. City of Concord, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, Section 15-10.
14. Such application must be rejected or such permit must be revoked for just cause, including the purpose of the event, which is to violate state laws.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A. Issue an order of notice for service on the respondent;
B. Schedule a hearing on the merits of the temporary relief requested on or before May 6th 2005; in the event the Court cannot schedule a hearing within said time frame, that this Court grant this petition for temporary relief ex parte;
C. Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and prohibiting the respondent from engaging in any practice regulated by RSA chapter 313-A without the appropriate license. RSA 313-A:9, I.
D. Order temporary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and prohibiting the respondent from operating a salon without the direct supervision and management of a professional licensed under RSA chapter 313-A. RSA 313-A:9, II.
E. Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and prohibiting the respondent from hiring or employing any unlicensed person to engage in a practice regulated by RSA chapter 313-A. RSA 313-A:9, III.
F. Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and prohibiting the respondent from engaging in the instructing of any activity licensed by RSA chapter 313-A. RSA 313-A:9, V.
G. Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and prohibiting the respondent from protesting without the requisite permits.
H. Grant such other relief as the court deems equitable and just.
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
By its attorneys
KELLY A. AYOTTE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorney Civil Bureau 33 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397 (603) 271-3650
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that the foregoing was mailed first class, postage paid to Michael Fisher, 7 Lamprey River Park, Newmarket, NH, 03857. ===
3. Unlicensed individuals engaging in the practice of barbering or cosmetology or esthetics present a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of New Hampshire.
This from Louise Lavertu, a member of the Board of Barbering & Cosmetology.
Meanwhile across town, Janice Davis began teaching kids without a license and Robert Willis was writing wills for money.
And they speak Spanish!
These are indeed scandalous times in which we live... *g
I don't see a problem.
THIS is how Boston should have dealt wih a corner store selling replica guns instead of raiding it.
Now, in both cases, there is there is a too-intrusive government. But at least in New Hampshire they don't dispatch the SWAT team.
And maybe a barber license costs relatively little. I know speeding tickets are cheap in New Hampshire. If it was like taxi medallions, where the government creates an artificial shortage, THAT would be a problem. But I have never heard of a barber license affecting the price of any service.
Moreover, licening trades is a traditional state power. No signs of abuse in this case, either.
The structure of the licensure process in our society sits on a foundation that presumes there is some state authority that knows more than anybody else, that knows best who is qualified and who is not qualified to do something, without any guarantees. The fact that this authority is a person who merely collects and files documents demanded by a checklist prepared by a committee is totally ignored. None of these people are accountable in a malpractice lawsuit, for example, because they issued a license to somebody who was totally incompetent to do the licensed job, but who was fully competent to supply the required documents. Documents dont do surgery. I think wed all be better off if we left the certifying of medical professionals to insurance underwriters who have a financial stake in being right. Insurance could guarantee to the consumer that the practitioner is educated and competent, the state cannot.
All you say is correct. But if licensing amounts to a low-cost formality, with no record of arbitrary denial of licenses, what this amounts to is giggling over the stilted wording of the document. Yes, there are probably better ways of doing this, but there are also higher priorities to fix.
That is why I cited the example of Boston police raiding a corner shop in an ethnic neighborhood where they hadn't heard of the horrors of toys guns without orange barrel caps. There are muliple layers to every idiocy.
And if it starts off as a low-cost formality, there's no guarantee that it will stay that way. For example, there's a new training & licensing requirement for tanning-bed operators.
Here's the website of the Board - I'd be curious as to your impressions as to whether it's a low-cost formality.
Any one offering Tanning needs to register immediately! You need to immediately file the application and $45.00 with the Board. You need to be actively pursuing and signing up for a class to become a certified operator. Please contact a provider on the approved list posted on this web page to find out the cost, in addition to the dates and times they will be coming to New Hampshire to provide training.
And to clarify, this event on May 9 is not about unlicensed manicuring per se, it's a publicity stunt to draw attention to the anti-competitive, anti-freedom characteristics of all government-run business and professional licensing by calling out one of the most absurd examples. And the State is obliging very nicely by absurdly threatening arrest of an unlicensed fingernail-painter.
Another possibility that was considered was unlicensed shampooing of someone's hair for profit, another violation of the law, but the lack of warm water led to the manicure decision.
LOL! You need a license to cut somebody's fingernails.
Seems like it. And the buyer has to fill out form ATF F4473 and wait 90 days for a background check to be completed before she can have the nail-cutting procedure performed. And, to make matters worse, Blue Cross / Blue Shield will not pay for the procedure.
OK, I get it: 300 hours is ridiculous.
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.