Utah woman jailed for selling flowers from her home

You're right, that is the law, and if I were on her jury I would vote not guilty.

What does this have to do with the article ? oh thats right, nothing. You are another one of these babblers that dont really know what you are talking about. Make your obscure loose connections because its "probably" close enough, spreading the derelict knowledge. Know a little bit of everything because you do not know a lot about anything.

go away libertardian.

My word the ignorant and incorrect are out today.

Think I will hang around a while. It is fun to see what "facts" you come out with to rebut my post. Oh that's right. Being a liberal you don't deal in facts merely single line stupidity that you somehow think elevates you to the land of the educated. I guess your distain for my ideas put you squarely in the pro-government, pro control camp. Pitiful. I hope your chains rest lightly upon you when you bow down to lick the hand that feeds you.

did i just hear a noise? you have some funny ideas about chains and licking. that's better kept to other websites.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Nice try but evidently you missed the not so subtle point. I have included the entire quote encompassing the "chains". You may have heard of Samuel Adams, had something to do with the First American Revolution that resulted in the independence of this country and the adoption of the Constitution, you may have heard of that document also. I apologize. It was not my intent to bring to light the glaring deficiency in your educationbut by including the entire quote by Adams this may dispell any ideas you may have equating the "chains" in my post with what evidently is either a fantasy or reality of perversion in your life. I suggest you read it and ponder the words in light of current events in this country. Although it may be difficult for you to glean the meaning there are tutorials available or, in the alternative, people who do understand the meaning to translate it into shorter words for your edification. Have a nice day. More apologies for the use of big words.

I appreciate your knowledge, though sadly it's lost on the majority.

Food for thought: I believe it's still not LAW in most states that you have to have a marriage license, though they make it very, very difficult. My state's law is the state recognizes your marriage if it's officiated by a religious leader (usually a pastor, etc.). What most people don't realize is when you obtain a marriage license, you have given the state 3rd party rights in your marriage. & with that, they now are third party to your estate. (Simply by obtaining a license that usually isn't even required.) I've been married 15 years and never got a license, yet it is recognized by the state and is bona fide.

Likewise with birth certificates. You are not required by law to obtain a birth certificate for your child. But should you decide to, you have given the state 3rd party rights in raising your child, which is an open door for taking your child if they see reason (or no reason). Again, you don't have to do this. (we sought legal counsel on this before the birth of our first child) We did not get birth certificates for our children (the state issues them, but they don't have my children's names on them, nor their parents' signatures), and had no trouble getting social security numbers or school enrollments, etc.

Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is rampant and leads to destruction.

I couldnt disagree more. An speak for yourself, or I can help you put your foot in your mouth.

Ok....if you've got some views that show how this situation was caused by something other than overbearing government regulations...I'd LOVE to hear them. I rather doubt you do though...

explain your view, I want to know.

Read the article ? She bought an resold flowers, not as a business, just went to the store an bought flowers, took them home an sold them, almost daily. I can see why people would buy them, but how about a TV ? her can-do spirit was trumped by her lack of knowledge and experience.

What's your point? Put me on her jury and I would acquit her, no matter what the laws says.

Glad we still have a right for Jury nullification!

BOO YA!

The point is, it is a matter of principle, take my TV analogy of the article, below. If I did, what this lady did, with a TV instead of flowers. And you bought that TV from me, you got it home and the pixels are defective, big blind spot. How are you going to get a correctly working TV like you expected to get when you made the purchase ? You bought it, still in the box from me. Im not going to fix it, I cant give a replacement, because I bought it from Costco and resold it to you. You are screwed. This is why, what she did is illegal. Just because she did it with flowers does not make it any different. Like I said it is a matter of principle.

Jury nullification is very powerful and should be used more often. Too few people know about this. One must be willing to except Jury duty, and not lie in order to get out of it. Jury duty is an excellent example of peaceful protest, if you are lucky enough to sit on a case involving current issues that need nullification.

There is absolutely no good reason why someone should not be allowed to resale their television. It is the basic premise of capitalism (Buy low sell high). The buyer needs to be aware and often a warranty can be transfered with receipts.

did you read the analogy, no you didnt, at least not by the time you made this comment. Shes doing it as a business, for profit. Not selling it at garage sale. Which she even said was legal in the article.
The warranty issues you mention are where the law may need to be changed. Warranties with receipts could be transferable across the board, as far as I can tell, but im no expert.

She was not selling TVs. Your assertion that there is no difference has no bearing. You sound like Javert from Les Miseables. "The law is the law."

"She was not selling TVs. Your assertion that there is no difference has no bearing." How do you justify this ? its an analogy, completely bears resemblance to the article.

I did read and I believe the resale of flowers to be a very basic right. She had to buy the flowers and transport them. Now people can go and purchase flowers at the same store if they want. We are talking about a tiny bit of money not like she had started a department store. God I am glad we don't have stupid laws like this in all the states. Fucking defective flowers.

This is a fine example of government overreach. Meanwhile, insurance providers are able to drop paying customers who require to much service. Consumer protection is not busting flower peddlers.

The fact is she wasn't selling a TV. She was selling flowers, how is your analogy relevant?

She GREW the flowers. Did you read the article? Apparentley not.

It is an analogy, that is how it is relevant. Either I don't understand your question (I doubt), or you do not know what an analogy is.

Yes, actually she did grow some of her own. But in her own words as she walked out of court, she said that she got in trouble for selling flowers from a manufacturer without a resale license. Look around this thread, do actually think I did not read the article. fool. Go be pissed off in Arkansas.

And you have that right to believe. Did the powers that be go too far, a little, imo. But that does not mean you discard the principle. Which is what majority of people in this thread apparently want to do. Dictators I think they are. The "real" problem I see is people not doing anything but coming to place like this and complaining, building up their anger (for things they mostly do not understand) and take it out on people like Congresswoman Giffords. Uneducated, selfish, fear monger, peasants, this place is full of them. Go to school people.

“We were not allowed to sell anything other than what we grew, except for once a month as a garage sale or bazaar,” she said.

I agree jury nullification is powerful but I am not willing to sit around and wait to speak up on issues.

So what are you going to do. Im really good at research, seriously, im interested in educating the public at the same time as working towards raising awareness for laws that need to be adjusted. I have a few ideas about how to do this. Or you dont care either ?

You see I am trying to understand the principle in terms of capitalism. This is not a site about complaining. We have opinions and lots of us are pissed about a variety of injustices. Mostly though I am learning about things that happen and are not reported everywhere. I would have no idea that Utah only is offering the choice of "guilty" or "no contest" if not for this post. Also I live in a very small community, so this site gives me access to city opinions from across the country and even the world. There are wonderful loving beautiful people on this site and yes from time to time we all complain.

I suppose I am being a little obtuse, and I apologize for that. My reason for disagreeing with your analogy is because she was not selling TVs. She is selling flowers. The law is not a one size fits all proposition. I understand and agree with the reasoning behind the television scenario, my point though, is that she is not selling televisions. Like I said earlier, if I were on her jury, I would vote to acquit.

True. My only issue here is with this one particular incident. I would not in every instance disagree with the application of the law being applied. A lot of these laws were designed as consumer protections, and despite what a lot of "free marketers" think, their notions are idealistic. Even today with legal oversight we have companies that knowingly put out products that kill their consumers. i.e. Firestone controversy. Yet they still want the market to "regulate itself." This is literally a DEADLY notion.

My issue is with the application of this law in regards to a woman selling flowers, not the law itself.

I don't see where she is only being allowed to plead either guilty or no contest. Is that in this particular article? Or did you do some research and find it somewhere else? I would be VERY interested in seeing some information about that!

She was not told she could only plead guilty or no contest. She was offered a plea in abeyance, which she is free to refuse and plead not guilty. Which is exactly what she did.

I was not talking about her case specifically I believe i said Utah and they showed a clip of the legal paper in the clip. I must watch it again just in case I am a total tool.

You're right, it is further down in the article. The judge offered her a plea in abeyance. She did not understand what it was, so she refused to sign it. She then got a court date and only had to pay $40. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the court, nor am I trying to pick an argument with you. Just trying to clarify what happened. It would be a HUGE thing if a court was preventing a defendant from pleading not guilty.

It would seem that they may be screwing some people that way. Most poor people are very intimidated by the courts. I sure know I have been even when I was innocent.

In US even innocent are sent to prison when they can not afford high priced attorney.

I know and I find it appalling.

We do, but judges instruct juries that we don't. That's a huge part of the problem.

You're absolutely right, the courts use intimidation and coercion. They seem to forget they are not working for the Executive branch, it is not their job to be focused on convictions. It is their job to insure equitable justice.

I think that you have hit the whole point of this discussion. Judges seem to be the problem in terms of justice. The last comment in this thread is a video news report that helps to better understand how the laws in Utah are being abused.

so, jail sounds pretty good by your logic. Education is your "protection tax"

Let me guess, your some angry Islamic guy. Checked your profile, seems Im wrong, good. But stick to TV an radio, your writing skills teach the youth incorrectly. We have more people in Prison for many good reasons. One of those reasons is we have lots people who enjoy violating human and civil rights. Lots of potheads in jail and stupid business people like the lady in this article. Instead of posting complaints, try posting solution.

Here is one solution, decriminalize marijuana. Stop allowing prisons to be run by for PROFIT industry.

nice, honestly, now keep spreading ideas of solution, please do not just complain.

well they're trying to ban gay families

i put up this post and i can sincerely tell you i do not have an agenda of any kind i just wanted to share this article

Ok then. I believe you. Those guys have just made it difficult to tell genuine outrage from propaganda. :(

o,ya the oath ya forgot about the oath,now it make sence,nonsence

old laws are silly

you are obviously not a man of your word.

how about the old laws of, time over distance, magnetism, thermal dynamics, relativity ? are they silly ? We only got them on paper recently. Just because you do not understand them does not make them silly. Well, it does for you.

what are you talking about,need more input

The laws of physics are inherent, the laws of man are made up. There is a difference, despite your assertion that the "laws" of economics equate to the laws of physics.

Your right, though, you seem to have forgotten it was merely to illustrate the point. Allow me to illustrate better. Abolishment of Slavery, thats an old law, is it silly ? Drivers licenses, thats an old law, is it silly ? Murder, thats an old illegal endeavor, is it silly ? or safety glass in cars, thats an old law , is it silly ?

Driver's Licensing is silly yes. Marijuana laws are silly yes. This law that put that woman in jail is silly. There are plenty of laws that are silly, and stupid. Pointing out laws that are relevant does not make them any less silly.

so is driving a right or a privilege ? do you know the difference and why ? I happen to agree on marijane.
So if you did buy that TV from me, and then it got recalled because the plug is defective and catches homes on fire in the night, who do you return the TV to, to get one that wont kill you and your family in your sleep ?

Driving is both a right AND a privilege. It depends on the context. I have the right to have a car and drive around in circles all I want without a license, insurance or registration. So longs as I never leave my property. Driving on public roads is a privilege, that is when you need the license, insurance, and registration. Or are you asking my personal opinion on the matter?

The lady was not selling televisions. She was selling flowers.

You said that driver licensing was silly. So my thought was, given this notion, was that you do not know the difference between a right and a privilege. Close enough I guess, though I could perfect your idea of the right Vs the privilege regarding vehicles. You are free to think its silly, im not arguing that, just that the justification for it. And, yes she was selling flowers. Dont believe all the mumbo jumbo here an jump to conclusions man, find facts, make calculated decisions, stay focused.

I responded on an earlier post. In this scenario, I do not take issue with the law itself. I am not like Shanklin and simply wish to abolish all laws carte blanche. My issue is with it's application in this particular case, nothing more. I agree wholeheartedly with consumer protection laws.

What ever law they are using is not protecting consumers; it is extorting sellers. People have to take some responsibility for what they buy. Now if she was selling something with lead paint or stolen property lock her up, oh wait we would have to lock China up. It would be interesting to find out if all the big corporate sellers have their resale licencees.

She probably would have just incurred a fine rather than being carted off to jail.

Too true!!

I thought everyone knew businesses do not make money their first year. Call S.C.O.R.E., I didnt want to say shoulda...

you see Nazi Germany coming back ? They weren't here to begin with, they were in Germany. BP says everything is ok huh ? How would they know, they dont know everything. Homeland Security is Nazi ? did I understand that right ? Im pretty sure thats what I read.
Im an American. Do you really want to know the most free country in the world ?

Good point. With so many laws on the books it is no longer clear is there is anything is still legal anymore.

If you are going to complain, you must speak of solution as well.
If not, just complain, complain some more, then look for something new to complain about some more.
Good pattern of life ? I say no.
This is not directed at MFT.

you should probably take that lame ass reply and go to wallstreet and tell them the same and leave this small business owner alone.