the phrase ‘with intent to,’ the phrase “with intent that,’ or some form of the verbs ‘know5 or ‘believe’ ”). The state asserts that when the legislature criminalizes an act without mention of a required intent level, it creates a general-intent crime. See State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 73 (Minn.1996). The state argues that the legislature intended to create a special category of crime for the licensee, which usually is not directly involved in the furnishing of alcoholic beverages, and that to read an element of intent or knowledge into the statute would render the statute absurd and of no effect. But this argument encourages a reading of the statute that eliminates any intent requirement. Such a reading would render the statute unconstitutional under Guminga. 395 N.W.2d at 349 (<HOLDING>). This court will avoid, if possible, any
holding fees mandatory under predecessor statute of  38001 holding elimination of provisions prior to passage of bill requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity indicates legislature intentionally omitted such provisions holding predecessor statute unconstitutional specifically because of vicariousliability provisions elimination of intent requirement holding the provisions of a comprehensive medical malpractice act unconstitutional holding that the copy requirement of the prisoner indigency statute is unconstitutional retroactively