Debtors prison

rushpat · #1 09-18-2006, 08:16 AM

Could this story be more proof that there is, indeed, a debtor's prison in this country?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/1....ap/index.html

masterduke · #2 09-19-2006, 06:18 AM

Rushpat, As the screw gets twisted tighter and tighter you will see the wolpoff's going back to court to whine and motion for a "court order" to pay them their filthy stolen judgement money. the judge, always ready to help in the theft, will issue this order and when the lunchbucket's can't or will not pay, boom, the hammer comes down with a contempt of court "criminal" charge. This sucks!

Codee · #3 09-19-2006, 07:12 AM

I believe that the court must offer an alternative to jail for debts IF the defendant cannot pay. If the defendant can pay and chooses not to then he is subject to contempt. Likewise if the indigent defendant chooses no alternative he can be imprisoned.

u2scsi · #4 09-21-2006, 08:17 PM

How can a civil case become criminal if you respond to every request from the attorney, except for payment? Wouldn't it become the option for the plaintiff (aka scumbag attorney) to seize whatever assets of yours they can legally take? The judgment just means the court agrees you owe them an amount. Where in there does it say payment must be rendered in full by xx date?

ezrhythm · #5 09-22-2006, 03:02 AM

My support judgement states that I am to pay a certain amount each month. That makes my due date the last day of each month.

masterduke · #6 09-22-2006, 07:17 AM

And since its part of the court record, there lies the possible contempt charge(if you fail to pay) that they can get even creepier about! I think you will start seeing more of these scumbags(debt attorney) pursuing this path. Also in order to scare other "debtors" into paying for their theft.

u2scsi · #7 09-22-2006, 09:51 PM

Okay, now I am confused. How can they legally do anything else on that judgment other than establish that the debtor owes the amount sued for? Can a judge add a payment schedule if neither plaintiff, nor defendent agree to one? With the exception of child support and alimony, which are court-ordered, does the court have the right to determine what a debtor can and cannot pay with complete disregard to shelter, food, and health?

charlesa6 · #8 09-22-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2scsi

Okay, now I am confused. How can they legally do anything else on that judgment other than establish that the debtor owes the amount sued for? Can a judge add a payment schedule if neither plaintiff, nor defendent agree to one? With the exception of child support and alimony, which are court-ordered, does the court have the right to determine what a debtor can and cannot pay with complete disregard to shelter, food, and health?

In respond to your question:The plaintiff can work schedule of payment out for the judge to approved it, but the judge have to follow the state and federal guideline to approved the payment plan.
State and Federal place a limits on collection of judgment.
There are certain exemptions, you must tell the judge or creditor attorney that your income or property exempt. if you agree to make the payment in court, then you are given up your exemptions right.

planetmark · #9 09-26-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2scsi

Okay, now I am confused. How can they legally do anything else on that judgment other than establish that the debtor owes the amount sued for? Can a judge add a payment schedule if neither plaintiff, nor defendent agree to one? With the exception of child support and alimony, which are court-ordered, does the court have the right to determine what a debtor can and cannot pay with complete disregard to shelter, food, and health?

This is what I've been saying since the "family court" got into my life. "Family Court" is the proving ground and science facility for these monsters to figure out how to move their corruption into mainstream. How and why? Well, most Americans view divorce as an inherantly evil thing. Probably the typical view is "they deserve what they get for not working out their relationship", etc. So, nobody pays attention to the fallout of a divorce. Propaganda keeps the rest of the fallout in check. Child support is an insidious evil, but propaganda paints it into an "obligation that the MAN owes". Now you have proceedings that are essentially secret, or at least hidden and out of the way from view of the average joe. Once hit, the victims of "family court" no longer have resources or backbone to fight, and no way to expose the corruption. "The judge ordered the judgment, that must mean you did something bad. It's only fair." Whatever. So the men can't fight back, and society's only view into the mess is thru propaganda and news about "dead beats" who finally got caught, etc. Inherantly false presuppositions and prejudiced views. But nobody can see that it's bias and mental programming, because we don't think about it, because it "doesn't affect ME". Well, one day real soon, it WILL affect YOU, personally.

Debt is debt. "Court ordered debt" (i.e. support/alimony) is STILL "debt". A little shuck-and-jive, and kazaam, suddenly we can paint you as a dead beat, and rub a little propaganda on top, and we now have prison as an option under the guise of "contempt". Bull pucky. Hog hairs. It's a judgment, and it is DEBT (albeit fabricated and fraudulently created). Failure to pay is not contempt. They have made it debtors prison, in no uncertain terms.

So, now here we are. Moving what they've learned in family court about what they can get away with, and how effective their propaganda has been, they now are applying the "contempt" angle learned and perfected in family court to the debt collection area of law. "Family Law" is a science experiment, a petrie dish, the breeding ground for tomorrow's take over of our entire legal system, only they will do it with compliance and quiet submission by the masses, because "everyone knows this is the law, and you have to obey the law." Nobody will see that "the law" has been mutated, obscured, obfuscated, flipped upside down, turned inside out, and then misapplied. "Its always been this way". Yeah, since you were a teenager, bopping along to your wacky music, burning out your intellect on M-TV, and spending all your valuable free time watching movies instead of studying and being active outside doing something productive.

There is NO reasonable, rational, logical way that you can ever convince me that prison for "contempt" is a viable legal option in a financial judgment. I have to look more into this contempt concept, but my understanding at this time leads me to believe it is a pretty narrow focus, and has a pretty well-defined scope of application, for a very specific purpose. Disobeying a court order in a financial judgement isn't in there to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, I wonder if anybody has any law or court cites dealing specifically with the authority of a court to "make an order". i.e. what are the limits of what a judge can demand in terms of performance or action/inaction? I know an injuction deals specifically with this, but that is in terms of tort between two people. "You will stop peeping into Mary's shower window" or "You will bring xyz evidence to court in the interest of justice". But a court cannot just up and "order" you to perform something willy-nilly. They can't even "order" you to pay a debt. They can make the judgement, and it's up to plaintiff to collect on the judgment.

Converting to "contempt" is an end-run around the law in order to make failure to pay a debt into a debtors prison "legally". Mockery and disgrace for our system of Law. It's coming out of the "family law" experiment, and it's coming with a host of other violations and intrusions and enslavements.