From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 09:39:15 MDT
"natashavita@earthlink.net" wrote:
>
> Although not similar, this reminds me of a lawsuit I heard on the news this morning. A woman had trimmed a few an Oak tree branches. Later she was fined $23,000 some dollars for breaking the law. When she bought her house, she did not know that the O
ak tree was a valued historical tree and the fine for altering it in any way is prosecutable. To her, the crime was negligible or trifling, although she certainly understands the value of this Oak tree. Her defense is because she lacked knowledge, and w
hen she should or could have been given knowledge, she was not due to the irresponsibility of other with whom she conducted business. Therefore, the onus falls on the parties who neglected to convey important information to her about her property (if it
was their responsibility to do so).
On further research, Natasha, it seems that the woman has a good case to
get it thrown out entirely. Under the SCOTUS rule of US v Wilson, "It is
wrong to convict a person of a crime if he had no reason to believe that
the act for which he was convicted was a crime, or even that it was
wrongful. This is one of the bedrock principles of American law. It lies
at the heart of any civilized system of law." (United States v. Wilson,
159 F.3d 280, 293 (7th Cir. 1998)(Posner, CJ dissenting)
Even Posner's dissent in that case holds hope for the oak cutting woman:
"We want people to familiarize themselves with the laws bearing on their
activities. But a reasonable opportunity doesn't mean being able to go
to a local law library and read Title 18. It would be preposterous to
suppose that someone from the defendant's milieu is able to take
advantage of such an opportunity. If none of the conditions that make it
reasonable to dispense with the proof on knowledge of the law is
present, then to intone 'ignorance of the law is no defense' is to
condone a violation of the fundamental principles for the sake of a
modest economy in the administration of justice."
Similar supporting cases include Bryan v. United States and Lambert v.
California, which add such details that even if the law is easy to
understand, if it is hard to discover how it would apply (i.e. in the
case of knowing which oak trees do and do not have historical
preservation restrictions upon landscaping) then either the principle of
malum prohibitum or that of malum in se would apply.
In the case of Lambert, she was a convicted felon visiting Los Angeles
who was unaware of a law mandating that any felon register with the
police if remaining in the city more than ten days.
Similarly, the current case of US v. Emerson, which 2nd Amendment
proponents are following with interest, contains a similar situation,
where Emerson was unaware that it was unlawful to posess firearms while
a temporary restraining order had been taken out on him without any
finding of an actual threat of violence.
Back to the original discussion, though. What exact sort of
'unintentional' pollution are we talking about? A case where the
polluter is unaware that they are actually generating pollution, or
unaware that the particular emissions they are producing (and may be
aware of) are harmful pollution?
For example, the very act of breathing produces carbon dioxide, which,
according to the socialist environmentalists, is a harmful pollutant. Is
being alive therefore a criminal act? Similarly, if an alleged
environmental group forces the shutdown of a nuclear plant, or many
nuclear plants, requiring that they be replaced with carbon dioxide
producing fossil fuel plants, are they then committing an environmental
crime?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:59 MST