The Injustice of Modern Day Debtors Prisons

[dajoki]

The Injustice of Modern Day Debtors Prisons
by Brittany Shoot June 16, 2010 12:21 PM (PT)
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/the_injustice_of_modern_day_debtors_prisons

Ever think that an overdue bill might get you locked up? Debtors prisons, outlawed in the U.S. in 1833, are having a resurgence. Technically, debtors are being thrown in jail for failing to appear at court hearings with debt collectors that in many cases they didn't even know about. Since when do law enforcement and the judicial system work for collections agencies?

Ever had an overdue bill? You might have owed some late fees on your credit card, and when things got bad, it was turned over to a collections agency. It happens. Have you ever thought you'd actually get locked up for falling behind?

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune reports that increasingly, Minnesotans are being thrown in jail for their debts. Several people with seemingly manageable debt were profiled for their recent story, shocked that they were arrested and even more bewildered when they spent a night or two behind bars. The Star Tribune also reports that warrants issued for people with unpaid debts have risen 60 percent in the past four years.

These debt warrants are often pursued by debt buyers with lawyers on staff. Most of the time, people aren't jailed for the actual money they owe; they're ordered to appear in court on a charge related to the debt and when they don't appear, a warrant is issued for contempt of court. While it may seem like folks should just pay attention and pay their dues, many people ignore notices from debt collectors simply because they don't recognize the name of the company seeking payment, as debts are often purchased from credit card companies or even other debt collectors.

Let's get one thing clear: debtors' prisons were outlawed in the U.S. in 1833 and with good reason. Technically, while you can still be imprisoned for unpaid debts, the practice is often considered unconstitutional unless you actually possess the means to pay.

Quite frankly, this entire process seems not only like an enormous waste of court resources (and taxpayer dollars); it seems that law enforcement and the judicial system are being manhandled by collections agencies instead of working for the people.

While the trend is disturbing, perhaps the most infuriating part of this story is that enforcement of these warrants varies so drastically from state to state. Where you live determines whether or not your creditor could make you spend a night in the slammer — or more, if you don't hand over the few hundred dollars you owe them. One Minnesota judge issued a warrant for a mere $85. How they expect you to come up with money while imprisoned is another issue, especially since some prisons are also thinking about charging for room and board.

There have been rumblings about this resurgence for a while. What scares me is how out of hand this could get before the abuses of debt collectors are reined in. Tell your state representatives to step up to defend debtors. One easy way is to let debtors fill out financial disclosure forms when they are apprehended rather than book them directly into jail. Everyone deserves to have their civil rights protected — especially the poor.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Absolutely unbelievable that some motherfucker unrec'd

Yes, let's not warn America about this :grr:

[dajoki]

2. Already!! It doesn't surprise me though n/t

[dajoki]

3. There's another one n/t

[gristy]

70. I unrec'd it too

But only to piss you off and to sidetrack the thread even more.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. She was jailed because

she didn't comply with an order to appear in court. It's called contempt of court.

But apparently we'd all rather pretend she was jailed because of the debt.

If you owe money, can't/don't pay, get sued and have a judgment entered against you then you can be compelled to show up in court for an asset hearing because of that judgment. Happens all the time. Nothing new about it. It's a tragedy for folks who truly lack the ability to pay and may find their wages garnished or liens placed against their property. But it is also a tool to enforce that judgement against others - including corporations - who are simply trying to skip out on their obligations.

FWIW, if you don't pay your parking tickets and suchyou can also find yourself in jail. Don't pay or contest the citation at the date and time specified and a warrant can be issued for your arrest.

[liberation]

54. ... yeah, except that corporations don't get thrown in jail

Also there is the fact that all those "debts" are based on money which did not really exist, in the case of credit, and which the bank used the "word" of the borrower in order to conjure from what amounts to thin air. So technically, when people default... the lending institution in many cases only really "lost" a tiny fraction of their own money. Since most of what they lend is not based on their actual assets.

But by all means, let's blame the victims and let's use the US penal system as an enforcer and debt collector for corporations.


What good does throwing in jail a person who can't pay a debt other than add insult to injury?

[loudsue]

68. Because our PRISONS are CORPORATIONS!!! And they need to think of shareholders

not human rights.

[dflprincess]

59. If the issue were truly the failure to appear

then people would not be able to avoid spending any time in jail if they're willing to fill out a financial disclosure form (allowing their bank account or paycheck to be garnished) when the deputy gets them to the sheriff's department. And, in cases where they land in front of a judge their bail would not be set in the amount of the debt & handed over to the collection agency.

According to the article in the Star Tribune, there have been a few cases where people were dragged in for debts that weren't theirs but belonged to someone with the same name (not ID theft situations - just cases where the collection agency got sloppy about who they were contacting).

Enforcement of these warrents in Minnesota is spotty & depends on how much staff the county sheriff's office has who have nothing to do. Yes, this can happen if you owe on parking or traffic tickets but that's the county/state collecting money you owe it. What amazes me is, given the budget situation in Minnesota, is that any county has the funds to act as the enforcer for a private collection agency.

[strategery blunder]

77. I'm guessing she wasn't served with an order to appear in court

and therefore had no clue she had to appear in court.

Service of process exists for a reason. Without personal service, everyone would constantly have to troll court records every day to check if some court order to do something pertained to them, or risk contempt of court. Obviously, this is highly impractical, so court orders must somehow be served upon the person so ordered.

I suspect that many of these debtors are never served with an order to appear, and are thus suddenly arrested for something they had no idea about. Seems like a violation of due process to me. (I'm not a lawyer, however.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. The "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" gang should be along shortly to (intentionally?) miss the....

... point of how aggressive debt buyers are abusing the courts over penny ante debts. The goal of these debt collectors is to flood the debtor with calls and collection notices with the hopes of having the debtor miss, due to often times dubious subpoena service, a court date so they can swear out a warrant for contempt. Once under lock and key, the debtor has to pay the debt before they are released.

It's called "throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks". Meanwhile, the jail system and police are de facto debt collectors.

edit to add: I guess I type too slow.

[dajoki]

6. It is exactly that n/t

[bobbolink]

7. They found a way to get around the law. Once again.

Scary, but then, so is the rest of life if you are poor.

[Hannah Bell]

8. a lot of stuff sounding like fascism these days. that's what happens when there's too much wealth

at the top.

[closeupready]

13. That is exactly right.

If wealth was distributed more evenly, there would be less debt/use of debt all-around.

[bobbolink]

21. Yet, where are the protests?

As you can see from some other responses, a lot of "liberals" consider themselves above these problems, so it doesn't concern them.

[Odin2005]

9. UGH, disgusting!

[Riftaxe]

10. Very misleading, they are not being incarcerated for

their debts, to state otherwise is dishonest.

[dajoki]

11. But they are being incarcerated because of their debts n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. No, they are being incarcerated for contempt of court

[leftstreet]

14. Why should a court be collecting money for the Ownership Class?

Why are courts even handling these matters?

Why is poverty being criminalized?

:shrug:

[dajoki]

16. "Why is poverty being criminalized?"

That is the question that needs to be answered, being poor in this country is hard enough, now they are turning the law loose on poor people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. If your bank refused to give you access to your money, wouldn't you want a method of relief?

:shrug:

[dajoki]

15. Because the banks...

and credit card companies are so powerful that they can use the criminal justice system to do their bidding.

[leftstreet]

17. But 'we' can't seem to use the same system on the criminal bankers

Something wrong with this picture...

[dajoki]

20. Something is radically wrong n/t

[Ilsa]

25. So. Let the judge declare "Summary Judgment", bang the gavel and

move on to the next case. No need to incarcerate someone who might not be able to leave their job to face their creditor.

[snappyturtle]

48. In some states not showing up results in a 'default judgement'.

Incarceration only makes matters worse. After 'default' a lien can be placed on owned property.

Haven't these idiots figured out you can't get blood out of a turnip?

Also, in some states, homesteaded property is off limits to collection agencies.

[dajoki]

73. Social Security...

is also off limits I think.

[liberalhistorian]

71. Don't you have a public school you need to go

destroy so that a fly-by-night "charter school" can suck up all of its resources, treat its staff like shit and claim to be educating children when they're doing no such thing and ignoring those with special educational needs, or something?

My mother, a retired teacher, had to deal with this shit when my stepdad, also a retired teacher (had to retire years early due to his illness, which reduced his pension) became ill and was permanently institutionalized with dementia. Most of their pensions go for his bills, leaving them little else, and collectors have harassed her for years for money she simply doesn't have. But they don't care, couldn't care less. I may be a pacifist, for the most part, but if she had been jailed, that would not have been the case, believe me.

Judges have some degree of discretion in swearing out these warrants, they are not always required to do so. It's sickening that they are doing so in many of these cases.

[bobbolink]

97. Thank you! It is disgraceful that on a forum like this we must bare our souls to get through to

hard-hearted people!

What your family has been through is more than a tragedy.... it should be a CRIME!

I can only imagine what this is doing to her health. :cry:

Best to your family, and thanks for posting this! :hi:

[ProudDad]

74. Irrelevant hair-splitting in order to avoid confronting

the realities of the death culture within which we live...

There's a reason it's called "Devils Advocacy"...

[Riftaxe]

18. Much in the same way that rapists

are being incarcerated for their sexuality.... :sarcasm:

[closeupready]

19. So now debtors are rapists?

??

[Riftaxe]

22. Are debtors being imprisoned for being in debt?

We both know that they are not, even the poorly written opinion piece the OP gave us states they are not.

"people aren't jailed for the actual money they owe; they're ordered to appear in court on a charge related to the debt and when they don't appear, a warrant is issued for contempt of court."

[dajoki]

23. I didn't write it...

I posted it because I find it disgusting that the banks and debt collecters are using law enforcement to go after debtors, no matter how small the debt.

[bobbolink]

24. And playing trapping tricks, too.

I'm also guessing that those defending these practices are the same ones complaining about taxes, and poor people getting any kind of assistance.

[Riftaxe]

26. Like it or not, courts of law have the power to

compel people to appear before them, that issue has nothing to do with poverty. The people who insist that it does are lying, but giving them benefit of the doubt for the moment, i will assume to attract attention to poverty in this country.

Similar to discussions in real life, poverty is ignored in favor of more popular outrages, even though in reality it IS a matter of life and death for millions in this country.

[bobbolink]

28. Of course it has to do with poverty!

[Riftaxe]

30. The arrest itself and the resultant incarceration

have nothing to do with poverty. Contempt of court are the charges, does not matter if it is in a civil or criminal case. The court has the authority to compel an appearance.

[bobbolink]

31. Of course it does. You just don't want to admit it.

[hack89]

36. How does poverty prevent attendance at court?

are poor people less responsible?

[wildflower]

39. They may not have a car, may not be able to get time off from work,

may not be able to afford a babysitter, and I'm sure other DUers can add to this list.

[hack89]

43. And communicating that to the court is somehow impossible?

phone call, letter, email perhaps? The OP is talking about people that completely ignore court hearings.

How would you handle such a situation?

[wildflower]

51. Please see post #50.

How would I handle the situation as a creditor? I don't know.

[bobbolink]

40. When I post to a forum for Dems, liberals and progressives, I expect a level of

compassion and understanding befitting those three categories.

I do NOT expect insults toward poor people, nor will I respond to same.

There are explanations in the thread, and if you don't understand what is being said, then further discussion is useless.

[hack89]

42. If you perceive my question as an insult

I see your problem. You are one of those authoritarian nanny-staters that want to infantize poor people and protect them from themselves instead of seeing them as capable, intelligent, responsible adults.

There is no reason to miss a court date.

Let me know when you are officially recognized as the gold standard by which all Dems, liberals and progressives are judged.

[dajoki]

56. "I see your problem"

Do you have some sort of crystal ball or are you a psychologist who can diagnose someone from a post on a forum board? There are many obstacles thrown in front of you if you are poor just to get through a day, let alone getting to appointments, any kind of appointments. Have you ever considered that someone may be homeless and have no address, therefore was never notified or had no knowledge of a court date, especially over some minor debt?

[bobbolink]

83. Thank you, dajoki! That poster outed itself with nastiness, eh?

:hi:

[hack89]

95. "Outed my self" Really?

I hurt your feelings by disagreeing with the insulting, paternalistic way you view poor people and I am no longer a progressive? I think you are the one that has revealed much about themselves.

[hack89]

96. Except none of that applies to the OP, now does it? nt

[dajoki]

99. Oh, I think it...

applies directly to the OP.

[hack89]

100. "many people ignore notices from debt collectors"

No mention of homelessness and lack of mailing addresses - looks more like people either not understanding or paying attention to their debts.

[dajoki]

101. It is not that narrow...

of a subject. There are many reasons people are not informed about their bills and many reasons that bills don't get paid, and I don't believe any of them rise to criminality except fraud.

[billh58]

72. What many appear to be missing

in this discussion, is that appearing in court will allow the Judge to determine ability to pay, and just may provide relief from further harassment by creditors. To the best of my knowledge, an appearance in court to settle a matter of debt will not result in a jail sentence unless fraud is involved. No one, regardless of the charge, is allowed to just blow off a court summons. Also, I suspect that a few "debtors" fail to appear because they do not want to disclose their actual income and assets.

In those cases where the wrong person has been summoned, an appearance in court is really the only way to clear the slate. We are a nation of laws.

[dotymed]

88. When you do not

receive a summons to appear, I'd say that is a pretty damned good reason. Also, if you called the court and asked to postpone a trial? Sure, no problem...be realistic please.

[proteus_lives]

53. No one was insulting poor people.

Disagreement doesn't equal insults.

[bobbolink]

84. Calling names is not only an insult, it is against the rules.

You wouldn't dream of saying the equivalent about gays, people of color, etc., yet it is considered "progressive" to do so with poor folk?

I expect better.

[proteus_lives]

91. What name-calling?

I'm not seeing it.

[bobbolink]

93. No, I don't imagine you do see it. It is so accepted, especially against poor people.

For the last time, I expect better from Dems and "progressives", and won't accept it anymore.

Bye now.

(You probably want the last word, so have at it.)

[proteus_lives]

94. Run away if you like.

I was asking a simple question.

:eyes:

[Rozlee]

61. Do you know some of the tricks these companies use? Such as sending summonses to a former

address that they know the debtor no longer lives at? My former son-in-law had a defaulted credit card. They knew very well where to send his bills to. But, when it came time to sue him in court, they had the court send the subpoena to a former address. And guess what? It was perfectly legal! He had no redress and couldn't come back with any way to defend himself unless he hired a lawyer, and did he have the money for that? Uh, no. They have all these little tricks that they use to make sure you miss your day in court. Another one: Sending the summons to an address you never lived at or to one of the addresses on a reference you used to get your loan approved. Read up on this kind of stuff. The collection agency that went after my ex-son-in-law is called Mann Bracken, LLC. They have had articles written on their practices and many other collection agencies are now starting to follow their successful rulebook. It's disgusting.

[bobbolink]

86. Thank you. This should be perfectly obvious to "progressives", yet they would rather

denigrate poor people than to make any effort to understand.

That is why I say that I expect better when I come to a forum of Dems, liberals and progressives.

I wish your post here got the attention it deserves! As a matter of fact, I would like for you to post an OP on this... would you do that, please? It is obviously necessary!

Thank you again! :yourock:

[dajoki]

27. I would say that's a safe assumption...

And when did so called liberals align themselves with the very people who are out to destroy any type of dignity some of us have remaining?

[bobbolink]

29. When? When they sold out to "money to win".

You know, like the DLC, et.al.

[dajoki]

32. Yep!!

[dotymed]

85. And, amazingly enough,

their bail is set for the exact amount that they supposedly owe. :wtf:

[JoshieR]

60. That is a terrible analogy.

I don't see many people having the ability to take credit card companies to court for loan sharking, which is what many of them do. Charge ridiculous interest rates that vary wildy. Only rather than breaking your legs if you don't pay, they assault you with legal maneuvers that will land you in jail if you can't keep up.

It's disgusting, as is your comparison of debtors to rapists.

[burnsei sensei]

45. Here is where they give the game away:

quote:
While the trend is disturbing, perhaps the most infuriating part of this story is that enforcement of these warrants varies so drastically from state to state. Where you live determines whether or not your creditor could make you spend a night in the slammer — or more, if you don't hand over the few hundred dollars you owe them.
end quote.

In other words, if you are serving time on one of these warrants, and you, through a friend or through magic, manage to pay the debt, then you are set free. What happens to the "contempt of court" charge then? You are no less guilty of that, are you?
This is imprisonment for debt.

[bobbolink]

87. Excellent post! Interesting that you haven't had a lot of replies to this...?

Would you please consider doing an OP on this, so that it gets more readership?

This is important to understand, and shouldn't be so hard for "progressives" to grasp, if we truly understand what corporations are about.

Thanks! :yourock:

[dflprincess]

92. Enforcement doesn't vary just from state to state

in Minnesota it varies from county to county. It all depends on whether or not the sheriff's office feels it has the time/staff/money to do the collection agencies' work for them. Some have made it clear that when it comes to a failure to appear warrent they're going to concentrate on the ones that might actually affect public safety.

[fatbuckel]

67. If we fudge the facts alittle and unfocus our eyes a bit, we can winge about almost anything.

[dotymed]

82. Freaking

Einstein....you see what you want to see. It is people like you who I hope get their "come-uppance."

[mhatrw]

33. "I just spent 60 days in the jailhouse for the crime of having no dough."

"Now here I am back out on the street for the crime of having nowhere to go."

[dajoki]

34. Oh, you don't know the shape i'm in n/t

[maryf]

35. Yow...

unbelievable, thanks Dajoki, K&R

[dajoki]

37. Hi Mary, thanks!!

:hi:

[evilkumquat]

38. I was a collection agent almost 20 years ago...

...and I can only speak for legal procedures in Indiana, but generally this is how people end up in jail for failure to pay a debt:

1) The debtor incurs a debt.
2) For whatever reason, they fail to pay the debt.
3) The original creditor makes attempts to collect before involving the legal system.
4) After numerous attempts to collect are ignored, the debt is turned over to a collection agency or lawyer (occasionally, the creditor files his own claims).
5) If a third party collector (i.e., collection agency) is hired, the debtor is notified by writing (sometimes by phone) of the debt and given thirty days to dispute or ask for additional information.
6) After attempts to collect fail, the collection agency or lawyer files a Notice of Claim in court, seeking a judgment against the debtor.
7) A summons is served by sheriff to the debtor or his residence (if the debtor is not home), usually giving the debtor 20-30 days to respond, or simply setting a court date for all parties to appear before a judge.
8) After 30 days, depending upon the notice, if the debtor doesn't respond or fails to appear in court, a default judgment is entered against him.
9) If the debtor still fails to make an attempts to pay, a Verified Motion for Proceeding Supplemental is filed, asking for the debtor to appear in court to answer questions about his income (so the creditor can file garnishment against the debtor's employer to compel the debtor to make good his dues).
10) The Prosup is sent via certified or regular mail, ordering the defendant to appear before the judge to answer questions. The court date is usually 30 days from the notice.
11) If the debtor (now defendant) fails to show up, a final notice is sent called a Rule to Show Cause. At this point, the debtor is in trouble with the judge for failing to appear before him, NOT from failing to pay the debt. At this point, the defendant must show up in court to answer why he didn't show up for the last hearing and "show cause" why the judge shouldn't find him in contempt. Generally speaking, if the defendant shows up for this hearing, the court simply waives any penalties for the defendant not showing up for the last hearing and they simply proceed as if this was the Prosup hearing.
12) However, if the defendant fails to appear for this final hearing, the judge rules him in contempt and a Body Attachment is rendered against him. This is the point where the defendant, who ignored not one but TWO orders of the judge, is really in trouble.
13) Even with a Body Attachment, the sheriff usually doesn't rush out and haul the defendant into jail. What happens is the warrant for arrest (because that is what a Body Attachment effectively is) stays on the defendant's record. If he gets pulled over for speeding or ends up in court on an unrelated matter, the police will find the warrant on him and arrest him on the spot.

While this may sound like my sympathy is with the collection agencies, BELIEVE ME it is more with the debtors (especially since my credit and my wife's has taken a HUGE hit during these shitty economic times). However, it is also my experience that most people who get arrested for these things bring it on themselves for disobeying a judge.

You can't be arrested for not having money to pay your bills (with one or two exceptions usually involving CRIMINAL acts, not CIVIL claims), but you can always be arrested for ignoring judicial orders.

[wildflower]

41. What happens if they're unable to attend the hearing, though?

If they don't have transportation, or money for transportation, or a babysitter, or can't get time off from work, or they're chronically ill and cannot attend; are there provisions for these obstacles?

[evilkumquat]

49. Actually, yes.

Depending upon the circumstances, the defendant can file paperwork claiming hardship or ask for a continuance.

Granted, eventually he will HAVE to appear before the judge, but in most circumstances, even the most indigent can find some way of appearing in court.

Again, this is just speaking from personal experience in my neck of the woods. A lot of the time, it all depends upon the whim of the judge.

Which does not, of course, thrill me. I think judges have WAY too much personal power.

Anyone who has the legal ability to toss people in jail without trial (contempt of court) is dangerous to a free society.

[wildflower]

50. I understand what you're saying.

I've experienced and known a lot of people with various types of difficulties. These difficulties would also interfere with the ability to receive, read, or reply to mail.

For example, not having a home or an address, having very bad eyes, dementia, physical illness, mental illness. So the idea that a debt could eventually lead to prison as a result of these problems worries me.

[ProudDad]

75. And won't the judge NEARLY ALWAYS rule in favor of the debt collector?

What was your experience with judgments?

What percentage goes against the debtor?

What percentage goes against a debtor appearing in pro per?

[evilkumquat]

102. In my experience it has usually gone toward the collector...

...but not always.

The judges in my area will not rule against a debtor without compelling evidence, not just taking the "word" of the collector.

However, often the debtor will not appear in court and the judge will rule against him regardless of what has been presented.

In one of my own personal suits, one by which I mean where I was the defendant, the attorneys for the creditor failed to show up and I won the case without having to offer any evidence to support my position.

In the end, one should always show up to court because you never know...

[KatyMan]

62. Something similar just happened to us...

My wife was divorced from her first husband 30 years ago. They had a quickie two page divorce, the judge said whatever each party has in their possession is theirs. They had a townhouse, the ex kept it, my wife signed what's called a quit claim on the deed and thought nothing of it ever again. Fast forward to 1988, ex lets the house go into foreclosure. 1992 a nasty collection agency filed suit against him to collect. They noticed that the shithead never took my wife off the mortgage, and added her to the suit. Now, just a couple of months ago, the agency got a garnishment order and seized our bank account. The ex has nothing in his name, all of the family property is in his brother's name, so the collection agency couldn't do anything to him, so they took our money. And still have a hold on our bank account. We have an attorney to sort it out, but we lost $15k in savings that we are never going to get back, all because of a debt we didn't know about, wasn't ours, and that we were never served on. I'd like to post the name and address of the ex here, but that would probably get the post deleted ;)

I should add I never had anything to do with this, but Texas being a community property state, they get to take my paycheck too if I direct deposit it.

[Starry Messenger]

46. morning kick.

[burnsei sensei]

47. If you imprison or bind someone for debt,

you can force him and his family to do all kinds of things for you.
The sharecropper did not work hard for money that was his.
He worked hard for money that belonged to his creditors.
His debts were never paid.
He was bound to the land for generations, his children also.

You can enslave people by way of debt. It happens all the time around the world.
You can extort by way of debt.
You can blackmail by way of debt.
There's no end of things you can do to someone who is in debt!

If we claim our country is free, and that we value the individual, how can we do this?
In 1833, under Andrew Jackson, the individual was important. Before then, there had been much tension, and even violence, between debtors and creditors.
Shays's Rebellion, the New England Regulation and the Whiskey Rebellion were not about the taxes as much as they were about debt.
Americans are not anti-tax because they hate government.
They're anti-tax because of the tension between debtors & creditors.
They fear being in debt.
And I hope they come to understand that a debt to a private entity is just as taxing as a tax.

[earcandle]

52. People should just claim legal bankruptcy and be done with debt altogether. NO MORE CREDIT CARDS!

[Daveparts still]

58. Except

where you don't have the money to file bankruptcy. That costs money too! When you say legal aid? I called for two days and when I got through it was obvious that it was like a MASH unit. People jailed people with real legal problems and you walk in with your bankruptcy and ask "Can you help me? I stubbed my toe."

[grahamhgreen]

55. Since the entire country is in debt - I guess we could all go to jail at any moment!

[liberation]

57. Funny how so many people (even in DU) make all sorts of excuses for corporations

heck some dudes were even getting their panties all in a twist because some high level BP exec had his sacrosanct benefit of the doubt violated when he "misspoke" adding further insult to the people in the Gulf.

But when it comes to the "little people" many of those people can't rush fast enough to make sure people get the book thrown at them.


The sad part is that most of these defaults are on money which really never existed. Thus it only affects imaginary numbers in abstract books that banks et al base their charters to conjure money out of thin air. Meaning that a tiny fraction of the real assets of the lending institution are ever affected when a "little person" defaults. Where as the disasters that corporations like BP visit upon us are not only real, but affects far more people, in a far more negative way, than a bank having their profits microscopically reduced would ever do.


We're a nation of useful idiots, who don't understand their actual place in the social pyramid (hint: you are at the bottom too idiot), with no sense of empathy and severely misplaced priorities. Seeing people all too happy to shill for financial institutions, for free, is not only sad but down right disgusting when the same financial institutions just got bailed out via the single largest transfer of wealth in human history and faced ZERO criminal repercussions.


Good grief, no wonder...

[dajoki]

65. Great post n/t

[Land Shark]

63. How about having utilities shut off for a claimed debt well under $100? (another egregious example)

nt

[Rozlee]

64. I got sued with a pretty nasty bunch myself once. A payday loan company.

At the time I was considered incompetent to handle my funds (back in 2002) due to brain swelling from neurological complications from an illness I picked up in the Gulf War. First one. My Social Security and VA disability compensation letters stated that my daughter was my responsible payee. I was out at a strip mall with a payday loan company in it when a couple approached me and told me that they were stranded and needed money. Well, one thing led to another and before you knew it, I was getting them a loan for $1000.00. Even though the compensation forms that the VA and SS faxed to them said right there on it that I was mentally incompetent due to a neurological condition.
Thank God in Texas they can't sue you for collection on government pensions. The court threw it out, but the way it works is that the loan companies sell it to one collection agency. If that agency doesn't collect, they sell it to another. It's been eight years now. It's far over the statute of limitations of five years here in Texas and I'm still getting notices. But, these loan collection people are sharks of the highest order. I'd hate to think of what they might have done if my pay hadn't been garnishable.

[defendandprotect]

66. Growing Prison Industry is a threat to us all -- to democracy . . .

[Greyhound]

69. K&R for another episode of

WorkCamp America®

[Jim101010]

76. Not paying child support

but people who fail to pay child support get locked up all the time for not paying debts. Not saying anything like that happened here, and as was pointed out they were locked up for contempt of court not debt, but that is a case where people ARE actually locked up for their debts.

Correction: the legal reason IS actually contempt of court in child support cases as well, but this happens whether or not you show up to court. I'm not aware of that happening in the case of other debts.

[fascisthunter]

78. and of course the usual upper-crust suck-ups

are defending this...

whatcha gonna do, tell us little people how to behave. Lol... good luck with that.

[KansDem]

79. "More Than 90 Banks Miss TARP Payments "

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/akron-oh/TGNCJ6AJRQINUGAJ2

So, when are these debtors going to prison?

[bobbolink]

89. Exactly!

:applause:

But, we daren't question their "irresponsibility", right? :grr:

[dotymed]

80. I had this happen to me in Indiana.

I was not aware of a court action to seek a judgment against me. I received a letter that I had been found in contempt of court and there was a "body attachment" issued so that I would appear. The police tried to serve this warrant on me on a Friday evening. I did not answer the door and they posted a patrol car in front of my house to wait for me. Obviously, I would have had to spend the weekend in jail before I could see a judge. I sneaked out the back door and had my sister pick me up. On Monday, I went to a lawyers office and filed bankruptcy.
Yes, the judicial system does work for the collection agencies. Amerika...
on edit... I had been out of the hospital for maybe a month after having heart surgery when this happened....

[bobbolink]

90. According to some DUers, very serious surgery is no excuse.

:nuke:

The heartlessness is pathetic.

[aikoaiko]

81. I just can't see reframing the true reason for going to jail as "debt"

I don't understand how the financial disclosure form is any solution?

[bobbolink]

98. There are plenty of reasons here, if you would care to read the posts.