Skip to comments.NH Attorney General threatens arrest of Free Stater
Posted on 05/01/2005 5:02:55 AM PDT by Dada Orwell
Concord, New Hampshire, April 30, 2005
Seacoast entrepreneur Mike Fisher doesn't look the part of a manicurist - or an outlaw. But he's about to become both.
Invoking the patron saint of civil disobedience, Fisher plans to violate New Hampshire's cosmetology laws - right in front of the officials who enforce them. And representatives of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte have already threatened him with arrest.
Fisher, 23, of Newmarket, is one of the 100+ "Free Staters" who have moved to New Hampshire since it was targetted for migration by a libertarian group, the Free State Project. In general, New Hampshire has fewer regulations and taxes than most states. But Fisher says there are still too many controls on small businesses, and the time has come to simply flout them.
His plan is to show up in front of the New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics, a bureaucracy that regulates nail salons. There, he says, he will administer an unlicensed manicure - for profit - "regardless of what they threaten me with."
After deciding his course of action, Fisher sent the Board a note informing them he would be showing up at their office to break the law they enforce. That triggered a call from the Attorney General's office; one of their investigators informed Fisher police would be present and he would be arrested immediately if he attempted to perform an unlicensed manicure.
Fisher says he got the idea from watching the movie "Gandhi."
"The British government (In India) had salt licensing laws," he says. "You could not make salt without a license. Now we cannot cut nails without a license, and I really don't see the difference."
A computer repairman, Fisher admits that until April he didn't know first thing about manicuring but has now learned the basics. He points out that anyone who *does* want to work as a manicurist would not be able to stand up to the Board the way he is doing. "They could lose their ability to get a license." he says.
It's the principle of the thing that bothers Fisher and a desire to see a rollback of state restrictions on most industries. "In a free country," he growls "people do not need permission to start a business."
As in most states, it is a misdemeanor in New Hampshire to administer a manicure without a license. An increasing number of other small business activities also require licenses. Fisher believes these simply provide a barrier to entry for young entrepreneurs like himself without effectively protecting the consumer or the public. "Private institutions and competition are more effective protectors of the customer," he adds, "and these are both weakened when government tries to do the job."
Supporters are invited to attend, join the fun and witness Fisher's act of civil disobedience. But you do not have to disobey the law yourself unless you wish to man the tweezers! The event will be on Monday, May 9, at noon, at or near the NH Board of Cosmetology at 2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH 03301.
What: Civil disobedience against "manicure law" Why: To call attention to state govt. overregulation of small business How: By delivering a manicure without a license Where: At or near the enforcing bureacracy: NH Board of Barbering, 2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH 03301 When: Monday, May 9, noon (in the event of extreme weather, call the numbers below for a status report) Who: Mike Fisher, supporters from NHfree.com, whoever wants to join us. Expected turnout: 10-20
Source: New Hampshire Underground http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Activists+to+Defy+State+Licensing+Laws
At least with a license, the customer has some recourse.
There is no recourse without a license?
Any customer of any business, licensed or unlicensed, has a recoursed called a "lawsuit."
Too late. The FSP was one of the fundamentals (along with the Massh*le ivasion on election day) that turned this formerly conservative state blue. NH now has a Democrat governor (some say almost as smart as Patty Murray), and they added 31 Democrats to the State Legislature. Conservatives that don't have roots in NH should look to the south and west while they can.
Which is worth spit without insurance to cover it.
Which is dumber? A law to regulate someone cutting nails or paying someone to cut nails?
There was an article posted after the election that showed, the southern counties/districts where people from Mass had migrated overwhelmingly voted for Bush. It's the mid and upstate areas, that have been trending blue...I don't think Free staters are to blame for this, they haven't been there long enough. Maybe you're also seeing an influx of Mainers from the east...
There are less than 750 FSP'ers in the entire state of NH... I think that the margin was greater than 750 votes for sKerry . NH needs to get their voting laws set up to prevent and detect fraudulent voting.
Yeah right. All 75 of us Free Staters who had moved to New Hampshire by then were the reason that 14,000 of angry Concord residents turned out Craig Benson, who was laying a bunch of them off and who was having the temerity to expect government to live within its means.
You're right, this state has problems, but the Free Staters are coming in as reinforcements for the conservatives against the tax-and-spend gun banners. Blaming us for Lynch's victory is nonsense.
If you look at the town-by-town election results on the Secretary of State's website, you'll see that every town along the Mass border except for the far eastern ones had healthy majorities for both Benson and Bush.
The current count is 358 in New Hampshire, including Free Staters who were already here before it was chosen. Fewer than 100 had actually made the move by last November, including my wife and I. Not to mention the fact that every last Free Stater voted for Benson.
Bloody 'ell. This idea is so naiive that words fail Me. Obviously, you have never attempted to utilize such a method at any time whatsoever. If you do, I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed with the results of such an attempt -if you do indeed decide someday to become something other than an armchair quarterback.
What makes you think that those persons established in positions of 'authority' that are determined to extract a 'license' (read:DOLLARS) from you is going to do anything but obstruct and deny you the ability to perform ANY action without obtaining a 'license' to do it? Not to mention finding more ways to obtain ever increasing numbers of them and fee amounts as well? I am astounded that such naiivite continues to exist in this day and age. I see W.C Fields observations continue to hold true no matter how many years go by.
In order to do it through "democracy," you have to make the general public aware of the ridiculous fact that manicurists are required to undergo a state-approved 300-hour course at a state-approved school and pass a state-administered exam in order to trim and paint other peoples' fingernails for money.
I can assure you that most people are not aware of this, except of course the manicurists themselves. A publicity stunt such as this, with broad coverage in the media providing tens of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising, is a way to attract attention to the issue so that the legislative process can be engaged by more than a handful of individuals.
In the meantime, though, the Board of Cosmetology is protecting New Hampshire from these dangerous threats to the health and safety of its citizens:
Fisher has just received notice (on May 3 I think) that the Attorney General is suing him. It's an injunction to prohibit him from performing this unlicensed service.
Apparently they sent the county sherriff himself to deliver the notice. They are playing hardball with him somewhat like the British did with Gandhi. The scale may be smaller but so far he seems to be on the same historical track.
The protest itself has been declared a violation of the law since they don't have a "permit;" so now it looks like there will be a pretty serious police presence.
Attorney General's Office Cancels Lawsuit Against Outlaw Manicurist
After filing an injunction to stop Newmarket resident Mike Fisher from administering an unlicensed manicure in front of the licensing board office, the New Hampshire Attorney General's office has unilaterally backed down and withdrawn the injunction.
Initially, the state tried to crack down on Fisher and discourage him from engaging in his act of civil disobedience. A sheriff was sent to serve Fisher with a notice of hearing for a lawsuit to prevent the illegal manicures and make the consequences far more severe. However, after at least one phone call from the press, the Attorney General's office called Fisher in a more reconciliatory tone, attempting to back off from their initial threats.
Ann Larney, Chief of the Civil Law Bureau of the Department of Justice, repeatedly asked Fisher to give the state any reason to cancel their lawsuit against him but he politely defended his plans and refused to back down. "We do not want to use the full power of the state unless necessary," Larney told him. "She was very friendly with me and I appreciate that," Fisher said. Within an hour, Fisher received another call saying the state's petition for injunction had been unilaterally withdrawn.
Regarding the state's actions, Fisher said, "I will not back down. Apparently the state might give in, for whatever reason." He was not given an explanation for why the lawsuit was cancelled, but at one point Larney said, "we want to wait and see what happens on Monday." She later warned, "if you go through with this, we'll file for a more broad injunction against any similar future actions."