It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wisconsin woman cuffed, booked for not paying library fines

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This thread serves as a perfect example of why our future is in peril in this country.

While many of you imagine facts which are not found in the example story of this thread, you seem to want a system where trivial wrongdoing is not meaningfully punished or deterred.

I just don't understand how people think that would make our lives better???

PROCESS is the foundation of our constitution. It is our protection against injustice. Chip away at that, and you invite the very tyranny you claim to be against.

Failing to understand the legitimate aims of governance is the surest path to losing a fair and just form of it.


Has our understanding of basic political science really gotten this soft????

Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I see you are a good writer, But you fail to show any concrete evidence showing that this was criminal. The laws you posted earlier only applied to people stealing not borrowing from the library.

A great speech by you but did not prove anything to help this case. I may not be a better writer, But i believe i have proven my case. and with that ladys and gentlemen,

I REST MY CASE.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by russ1969
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


It became a criminal matter when she didn't go to court. Doesn't matter why she was going to court, she didn't do it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 



Yes, i agree that her not appearing made it a criminal matter. The fact is it should have never went to court or involved the police at all. I am disputing what happened before the fact she didnt show up in court and how this is wrong. A lot of people keep using examples just like i did to show how this was not justified. I now see that no matter how much i dispute what happened before the fact the police got involved, Some people will just keep pushing the issue of her not going to court and she is just wrong.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by russ1969
 


yeah i see what you mean... its a little trivial matter, and could have been handled differently, instead of going directly to court. But i think we need more info on the matter to understand how things came about.

But as far as i see, that law doesnt just apply for those who steal directly without borrowing first, because after the renting period goes out it becomes theft from the library.

I think legal stuff is hell... im reminded of a story about a man who was sent to jail for many years, and who was found to be innocent in the end. He got compensation. But then the jail demanded money for housing and food for his time there, which went to court, and they won. He lost much of his compensation to them.

It doesnt take a genious to figure that this is just not how it should be. And what could the guy do after that? he didnt have anything... to make more of this would have cost him more MONEY. Its wrong in so many ways.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Honestly, people, think about what you write.



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.


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


Hmm you answered it all yourself - all you had to do is read what you posted . Does it take a court hearing these days to suspend library privileges? Does it take a court hearing to fine her and bill her? Does it take a court hearing to send her to collections? Duh nope - a court hearing is a waste of taxpayers money. Plain and simple.

Maybe we should ask people before they post to tell us where their income comes from - so we know if they are talking about their personal well being or the good of the people. If they are a government employee, cop, court clerk, court reporter or even a lowly jailer they shouldn't hide that fact when speaking on such issues that might effect their industry.

WE DON"T NEED COPS & COURTS TO FINE HER. How difficult is that to absorb? That's not how I want my taxes to be used and I wouldn't let it happen in my state.



that ridiculous dribble...


Look in the mirror my friend - the ridiculousness is in this case and is why it made headlines. The fact that you support such action speaks for itself. The nation has had enough self-righteous borderline Police state crap from servants who are lost in delusions of grandeur.

If they quit working for us as servants we will discard them for we are the people.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
According to the crime statistics for Grafton, WI (see safety.fizber.com...), there were only 3 violent crimes committed in each of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the most recent years for which stats were provided. Apparently, either the law enforcement folks there are naturally bored, or they have a low crime rate because law enforcement is an ominous presence. In either case, "to protect and to serve" doesn't seem to include being caring and friendly, at least not in Grafton, Wisconsin.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Of course nono of the real conspiracy nuts around her bothered to read further than the single sentence that started this topic. They didn't bother to read about what REALLY happened.

This woman ignored repeated written notices to return the books.

She ignored a statement that this was being referred to the local prosecutor.

She ignored a statement from the prosecutor that if she did NOT appear, a warrant would be requested for her.

She ignored the order of the court to appear before a judge.

Finally, she was arrested. She deserved to be arrested, because she is down right S T U P I D.

Just like those of you that never bother to tell the true stories around here are S T U P I D!



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OldMedic
 


What REALLY happened? Two unreturned library books turned into a manhunt and handcuffing a human being, throwing her in jail and many hours of peoples time that exceeds the offense at least a thousand fold.

The fact that an action of checking out a book can lead to this in a civilized world is preposterous and is why nobody has any respect for the corrupt system full of imbecilic stooges.. Maybe we should just do away with library and let them concentrate on busting people for ingesting plants that aren't on the list of legal substances.

And the most S T U P I D award goes to - those support the stupendous waste of taxpayer money to hunt down and jail a person for not returning a library book.

Nobody's denying she made some stupid moves here. The argument is how the stupid people in the stupid system acted even more stupidly in an attempt to resolve minor stupidness.

When the system becomes more important than the people it serves it is long broken.

It's like the cop who runs over the motorcyclists because he wasn't wearing a Helmet and refused to pull over. The motorcyclists wouldn't stop for the ticket, so the law becomes more important than the reason it was created, so the cop cracks the suspects head open by running him down. Once again the law sees itself as more important than those it was created to serve.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Does it take a court hearing these days to suspend library privileges? Does it take a court hearing to fine her and bill her? Does it take a court hearing to send her to collections?

Duh nope - a court hearing is a waste of taxpayers money. Plain and simple.


It's sad you don't even see what you are saying. So I'll try one last time.

It DOES take a hearing in a free and just system. I have a RIGHT, guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, to have a hearing and answer in opposition to ANY government process with the power to punish. In other words I get to DEFEND myself. It's not a flaw of the system...it's a feature.


Otherwise, I can simply pay a fine (which is essentially a guilty plea) and be done with any further process altogether. I get to decide-- one or the other.

So what is it you object to about that approach?

You rail about tyranny, but have such a poor notion of what brings it about.

Under your system, I lose my library privileges because you think it's a waste to give me a hearing. Maybe I returned the books and the library screwed something up. Who do I get to tell my story before I'm punished under your system?

Get it?

Your way creates the very problem you claim to oppose.

There are plenty of examples of abuse of power in our government, but this one isn't one of them.


Originally posted by verylowfrequency
...the ridiculousness is in this case and is why it made headlines.


And here, you seem to miss how you are being manipulated into buying a PRODUCT.

It made headlines PRECISELY because it was designed to elicit a strong response from you. Otherwise, it wouldn't sell as well.

Why wasn't the story about how this one citizen (and others like her) bleed the system dry and cost taxpayers money? After all, the CHEAPEST thing for her to have done would have been to simply return the books.
Failing that, paying for them outright. And failing that, simply paying the fine. But she FORCED the system to go further. She waited until they arrested her before she would pay. Where was that point of view in the article?


Where *IS* that point of view?

If you want a fair form of governance, you have a responsibility to agree to certain rules of process. Otherwise, there can be no fair form of governance.

I'd strongly suggest you rethink your position, because your illogical ranting on this stupid woman's example distracts from more meaningful investigation into REAL abuses of power.

...and there is plenty of the real stuff out there.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by loam]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Well we agree to disagree. I see it not so much as an abuse of power as more of the abuse of the system that was never intended to be abused for such trivial matters - simple.

Yes, I agree there are more important matters to bitch about, and I've said all that needs to be said at this point here.

Anyway good day - and don't forget to return those books on time.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Under $500 is a misdemeaner, which does not require bail, and after all that time she was obviously not a flight risk over $30. How ridiculous. It should have been a simple civil suit of the Library vs. jane doe (or whoever) to recover price of books and interest on the length of time and any cost of printing and mailing the dumb notices. $176..... The legal system there must get something out of this to waste their time on $30. Hell, it would be less a hassle and save the judge and everyone's time to just volunteer the money for her and close her account. Then problem is solved. Oh wait...that would be too easy!


What a waste of time, paper, resources, and staff. Your tax dollars at work, fellow Americans.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wench
 


Thank you for pointing out something that i have been saying the whole time. This is just a civil matter and nothing more. I wish more people would see this and quit harping on about how she did not show up in court so she was wrong.

This is a prime example of how laws are written and used the wrong way. This was a breach of contract not theft.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wench
Under $500 is a misdemeaner, which does not require bail, and after all that time she was obviously not a flight risk over $30. How ridiculous.


What is ridiculous is how many members just make stuff up and clearly don't know what they are talking about. (This link cites the actual law.
)

Why do certain members do that?


Denying ignorance is the furthest thing from your mind, huh?



[edit on 27-8-2008 by loam]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FRIGHTENER
 



This is so stupid, why didn't she just pay her fines??? I have to admit I didn't read the whole article but still, it's a library fine, how high could it have been?? The most I have had to the library was 20.00, and I paid it, it was for an overdue DVD, the lest amount I had to pay for an overdue book was 25 cents! Not that bad in my book!! UGHH!! people give me headaches!! LOL



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jess31
 



I finally read the short article, because earlier it wouldn't load, she had to originally pay 30 dollars for two books. I am wondering how long she had kept the books? What an idiot, she return the books, pay a small fine, and she would have been okay!!! LOL Let me guess she probably claimed she was so poor she couldn't possibly pay the fine, but yet I can bet you money she could easily afford to buy her cigarettes, and her lottery ticket!!! Give me a break! She did this to herself! I have no pity for stupidity!!



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Now hold on there, You say that we dont know what we are talking about? I think you need to read that law that you posted a little better.
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.

I want to point out that the part that says on loan means items that are loaned to the library, Not items out on loan from the library. Ok on to the next part.
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).

And again i will explain what this means. Without the consent of the library means taking the item out of the library without checking the item out through the computer and an employee of the library. This law is only there for people who steal from the library.

So i think it is fair to say that Maybe you are the one mistaken hear. This issue is not about how stupid this lady was for ignoring the library and not returning the books. The real issue is How a civil matter Was turned into a criminal matter By using a law on the books that clearly does not apply to this case. And any good lawyer could have had this thrown out of court. But most likely She would have a public defender that works with the D.A's And judge everyday So she wouldnt get A good defense From Them.

So you can go ahead and blame people like me And say this is why our world needs help. You keep talking about how the system works and it is what this country was founded on. But the sad fact is our justice system has needed help for a long time. And to waist time and resources with a case like this is a great example of how broke it is. And in my opinion, People who support this type of action is the real problem.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by russ1969
 







..."Library material" includes any book...

...Whoever intentionally...retains possession of any library material without the consent of a library...and with intent to deprive the library of possession...may be penalized.



Does that help?

I take it you're not a lawyer.



Originally posted by russ1969
And again i will explain what this means. Without the consent of the library means taking the item out of the library without checking the item out through the computer and an employee of the library. This law is only there for people who steal from the library.


Why did you skip the "retains possession" part of the law?


Originally posted by russ1969
...And any good lawyer...


I want to be nice to you. Really, I do. But again, you clearly are not one of them.

It's ok, legalese is often hard to wade through.


Originally posted by russ1969
But the sad fact is our justice system has needed help for a long time.


On this we agree. But NOT because of THIS story.


Originally posted by russ1969
And to waist time and resources with a case like this is a great example of how broke it is. And in my opinion, People who support this type of action is the real problem.


No. THIS case is an example of how broken WE are...culturally.

It's ashame you don't see why.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


She had consent from the library to check these books out. I think you dont understand how this was written. And you are right, I am not a lawyer. But i still know how to understand what i am reading. I am not disputing how stupid this lady was by her actions. She could have avoided all of this by simply returning the books or paying for them. My dispute lies in how this law is written and how it does not apply to this case. Maybe We can both Stop debating For a minute and wait for A lawyer that may post here on A.T.S and see what there opinion is. Because at this point we both Believe we are right. And there is nothing wrong with that. But i believe we have both presented our case very well and now we need Other opinions.

And b.t.w, Thank you for taking the time to debate this issue with me. It seems you and i are the Only ones that wont give up on our beliefs and convictions regarding this matter. And im happy to see we can do it In a civil matter. I may not agree with you on this matter but i Still have great respect For you due to your willingness to never give up and always stand up and fight for what you believe in. I look forward to future discussions with you.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I am with loam on this one all the way.

The law quoted and posted clearly says “retains possession of without consent”. This woman kept the books after letters and phone calls asking they be returned or paid for. This also points to the next part of the law which says “with intent to deprive the library of possession”. This was clearly done when she still ignored both the calls and the letters without returning the books or paying the fines. At the time where she failed to return the books when asked to do so she in essence done the same as if she had walked out of the library without checking them out. She committed theft.

I would also like to point out that it is funny how some posters have blamed the police for this when the police are not the ones who write the laws or place them on the books. The job of the police is pretty much to make sure that said laws are followed. Most laws that I can think of have been voted into place by the people themselves. Sure someone comes up with the law they think is necessary. They are then usually placed on a ballot and voted into place by the people who I would assume also believe the law to be necessary. Later laws can be overturned by the state or federal Supreme Court if they are ruled as unconstitutional.

I also agree with loam that one cannot expect culpability to be answered for on any level unless we allow it to be answered for even for minor offences. The price simply gets higher and higher if we allow people to slide. Before long it will be the cost of our children if this has not already started.

Raist



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join