Wisconsin woman cuffed, booked for not paying library fines

Originally posted by russ1969

It doesnt say anywhere in this story she stole the books and didnt show up in court. She borrowed the books from the library like millions of others have since the library system has been in place.

Well ok, it doesnt say she STOLE book... she borrowed them, with the intent to never return them As far as i know you can only borrow them for as long as the contract or deal says. Its stealing because the owner wanted the book back, and she didnt comply.

She did NOT appear in court as it says:
"She ignored the library's calls and letters as well as a notice to appear in court."

This is a small town:
Grafton is a town in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, United States. The population was 4,132 at the 2000 census. So maybe the police DIDNT have extremely much more to do.

Originally posted by russ1969
Ok, so am i to assume that you do not agree that this is a civil matter?

When she was given the option to pay a fine or otherwise appear in court to show cause, SHE converted it into another criminal matter when she decided upon neither option.

...which brings me to my very first post in this thread. She brought this upon herself.

Originally posted by russ1969
I have total respect for your view on this subject and do not doubt from your previous threads that you dont support abuse of the system.

Well, thank you and fair enough.

I also don't mean to sound harsh with respect to your position.

My apologies.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by loam]

Here i want to clear up a few things. Maybe some people dont know what civil law is. So here is the link. Maybe after reading this you may change your mind on this matter.en.wikipedia.org...(common_law)

It is very clear to me. But it may be possible im missing something here. Im not perfect and will look at others views with respect and a non bios opinion. Im basing my opinions on the law and how these matters are dealt with normally.I want to see how cival matters became criminal. Please show me this and not just state it. I want to see this law that is on the books.

Originally posted by russ1969
Here i want to clear up a few things. Maybe some people dont know what civil law is. So here is the link. Maybe after reading this you may change your mind on this matter.en.wikipedia.org...(common_law)

It is very clear to me. But it may be possible im missing something here. Im not perfect and will look at others views with respect and a non bios opinion. Im basing my opinions on the law and how these matters are dealt with normally.

Nope. You really don't have that right. Go back and even re-read your links.

Originally posted by russ1969
I want to see how cival matters became criminal. Please show me this and not just state it. I want to see this law that is on the books.

Well, let's start with the fact that what she did was CRIMINAL to begin with:

Wisconsin Criminal Code.

943.61 Theft of library material:

...

943.61(1)(b)
(b) "Library" means any public library; library of an educational, historical or eleemosynary institution, organization or society; archives; or museum.

...

943.61(1)(c)

(c) "Library material" includes any book, plate, picture, photograph, engraving, painting, drawing, map, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, broadside, manuscript, document, letter, public record, microform, sound recording, audiovisual materials in any format, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data processing records, artifacts or other documentary, written or printed materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, belonging to, on loan to or otherwise in the custody of a library.

943.61(2)

(2) Whoever intentionally takes and carries away, transfers, conceals or retains possession of any library material without the consent of a library official, agent or employee and with intent to deprive the library of possession of the material may be penalized as provided in sub. (5).

...

943.61(5)
(5) Whoever violates this section is guilty of:

943.61(5)(a)
(a) A Class A misdemeanor, if the value of the library materials does not exceed $2,500.

943.61(5)(c)
(c) A Class H felony, if the value of the library materials exceeds $2,500.

Moreover, when she failed to respond to the summons, a warrant was then issued for her arrest under the following:

968.04(2)

(2) Summons.

968.04(2)(a)
(a) In any case the district attorney, after the issuance of a complaint, may issue a summons in lieu of requesting the issuance of a warrant. The complaint shall then be filed with the clerk.

968.04(2)(b)
(b) In misdemeanor actions where the maximum imprisonment does not exceed 6 months, the judge shall issue a summons instead of a warrant unless the judge believes that the defendant will not appear in response to a summons.

968.04(2)(c)
(c) If a person summoned fails to appear in response to a summons issued by a district attorney, the district attorney may proceed to file the complaint as provided in s. 968.02 and, in addition to endorsing his or her approval on the complaint, shall endorse upon the complaint the fact that the accused failed to respond to a summons.

...

968.04(1)

(1) Warrants. If it appears from the complaint, or from an affidavit or affidavits filed with the complaint or after an examination under oath of the complainant or witnesses, when the judge determines that this is necessary, that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused has committed it, the judge shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant or a summons in lieu thereof. The warrant or summons shall be delivered forthwith to a law enforcement officer for service.

Clear?

Remember, she had the choice to pay a fine in lieu of complying with the summons to appear.

She choose neither.

That's why she was taken away in handcuffs.

I should also point out:

Dalibor paid her $170 fine and was released.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam

943.61(2)

(2) Whoever intentionally takes and carries away, transfers, conceals or retains possession of any library material without the consent of a library official, agent or employee and with intent to deprive the library of possession of the material may be penalized as provided in sub. (5).

Now what is wrong with this statement? It says without consent of a library official, agent or employee. She checked out these books from the library. And it was a library official, agent or employee who checked the books out for her.
So this law does not apply. But thank you for looking this up and posting it.

reply to post by russ1969

What happens if you dont return book to the library? They may file charges for theft.

What happens if you don't show up to court? The judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest.

I dont know

reply to post by Daniem


This is nothing more than a contract between the person and the library. They loan something and you promise to give it back. If you dont then they can sue you for the value of the items. thats it! Civil law, not criminal. How hard is that to see?

reply to post by russ1969


Why doesnt it apply? She retained possession of library material without the consent of a library official.

Originally posted by russ1969
Now what is wrong with this statement? It says without consent of a library official, agent or employee. She checked out these books from the library. And it was a library official, agent or employee who checked the books out for her.
So this law does not apply. But thank you for looking this up and posting it.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

Why do you convert consent to check out the books for a limited period of time into FOREVER????

The moment the period of time had elapsed and she refused to return the books, it became WITHOUT consent.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by russ1969
This is nothing more than a contract between the person and the library. They loan something and you promise to give it back. If you dont then they can sue you for the value of the items. thats it! Civil law, not criminal. How hard is that to see?

You're just wrong. No amount of wishing it to be otherwise will change the facts.

She needlessly violated several laws.

Why would you defend her behavior?

EDIT:

Because I'm a real sucker and just can't believe you believe your own words.

They loan something and you promise to give it back. If you dont then they can sue you for the value of the items. thats it!

So are you saying that if you have your car parked by a valet, he gets to just drive off with it and take it to his home, while he awaits your civil action for a judge to pronounce how much he should pay you for it?



Really now. You can't believe that.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam



Thank you for posting that ridiculous criminal code. That's exactly what I meant by a fascist police state. Just look for the people who pushed this code into Law and you will find your fascist pigs - who should have zero business writing laws in the U.S.A. Maybe they belong in North Korea or China, but not America. In fact I would support putting them in prison for passing such crap.

No wonder we have the highest per capita prison population on Earth.

While I agree the woman should be punished - I vehemently disagree that it should of become a court case. Nobody in their right mind would waste the courts time to take somebody to court for less than $50. Another words if your neighbor borrowed a broom from you, you would not sue them for failing to return it - just the filing fee would cost more than a new broom. It doesn't make sense. You'd quit loaning them stuff and quit inviting them to barbecues. Now if they stole it from your garage without permission I could see filing a criminal complaint. Otherwise it's a civil matter and probably not worth your time.

All they had to do is bill her, then send her to collections and then ding her credit and remove her ability to use the library any longer. Simple, effective and cost the least amount of money to resolve.

Instead we have some fascist book Nazis who pushed this legislation through that criminalize someone for failing to return an item that might be worth $5 dollars according to the code anything less than $2500 not returned in a timely manner is a misdemeanor. I think the error here is there doesn't seem to be a minimum value. Maybe $250 - 500 would make more sense than the current zero value, but then the fascist book Nazis would just make late fees 10 times the item retail value so they could still get their desired result of imprisoning anyone who ignores them.

Though still ridiculous, I'd rather see the police come to the door to collect the books - rather than what occurred.

Again this is not what our courts and police are for - Could you imagine if everyone called the police and charged people for borrowing butter, bread or milk from a neighbor and not returning it. It's just plain stupid and a outrageous waste of taxpayer money and that's why it made national news my friend - because it is so over the top and asinine it is the laughing stock of the nation.

The only reason it became a law because the servants forgot who they were serving and they are pissed that they have to use the budget to buy new books instead of pilfering it for retraining retreats at the $400 a night resorts or giving themselves pay raises.

Get over it - the world is not perfect and you can't legislate it to be.

NAZIS can go to hell.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
This is called a serious lack of responsibility and a bad allocation of police responsibilities.


in that case they should be shut down and the jurisdiction given to the state or county body

bad waste of tax payer dollars.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
I love the handcuffs in this case. She's such a criminal, you can't tell if she's going to get violent on the cops, so you best cuff her just in case she thinks of killing the two police and making a break for Mexico!

[edit on 26-8-2008 by elevatedone]

Ok, she got arrested and jailed By the local Gestapo, for 30 dollars.

The police and court apologist doesn't get it, this for 30 dollars.

Now will this mean that every time you default in credit cards, house payment, car, medical bills you will be a target as they get away with 30 dollar fine.

I can not wait when the arrest for any of the above become a norm as people in this nation are getting short handed in the pocket books due to the disastrous economy.

Honestly, people, think about what you write.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
While I agree the woman should be punished - I vehemently disagree that it should of become a court case.

So you're in favor of punishment without a hearing?

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
All they had to do is bill her, then send her to collections and then ding her credit and remove her ability to use the library any longer. Simple, effective and cost the least amount of money to resolve.

...which is EXACTLY what they would have done had she gotten in her car and simply stood before the judge on the appointed summons date. Short of a reasonable defense, a judgment would have been rendered against her and she would have been sent on her merry way.

The whole point of the citation she was given was to avoid the needless spending of tax dollars. If you agree you are culpable, pay the fine and you don't have to go to court. If you don't pay the fine, it is presumed you do not believe you are culpable and wish to offer a defense.

THAT is not a NAZI system. It's a constitutional guarantee.

:shk:

What ridiculous dribble...

[edit on 26-8-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by marg6043
The police and court apologist doesn't get it, this for 30 dollars.

I can't believe you think I'm an apologist.

Good grief.

reply to post by elevatedone



Do you believe this should be a criminal matter or a civil matter? Yes i agree she was arrested for not appearing in court. My whole point is it should not have gone to court at all. This was not an issue that should have involved the police or the courts. Civil court maybe, but not criminal.

Originally posted by russ1969
Civil court maybe, but not criminal.

I don't know what your hangup about civil vs criminal court is... (You still don't understand that civil suits are between individuals and private entities.)

But let's assume your approach is the one we have, because the name is meaningless anyway. What would happen if she refused to go to THAT court?

Come on.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam


If she didnt show up in civil court they would have had a judgement against her and thats it. then the person could use other means to collect. Like garnishments, lien, Collections.

Let me explain it again. When you sign out a book from the library, You have agreed to return the book within a certain time. This is considered a contract between two parties.

quote"Civil law courts provide a forum for deciding disputes involving torts (such as accidents, negligence, and libel), contract disputes, the probate of wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative law, commercial law, and any other private matters that involve private parties and organizations including government departments"
LINK.en.wikipedia.org...(common_law)

Yes the fact of the matter is it did go to court and she failed to show up. So therefore she was arrested. The law at that point had no choice. I am not addressing the fact that she was arrested because of this, I am pointing out why this should not have gone that far. And to what a waist of money it was to the tax payers in this town.

And how do you know she didnt just lose the books. And that was the reason for not returning them? You cannot arrest someone for not being able to pay a fine to the local library.

And an adit to add i do not have a hang up on civil versus criminal law. I am stating facts and trying to point out to you why this was handled the wrong way. This type of case is the start of bad laws being enforced. And should be challenged in a higher court.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by russ1969]