Most of his posts had little to do with "you should show up in court when summoned" and more to do with "they just wanted to borrow money with no repercussions"
The article did seem to, purposefully or unpurposefully, gloss over the distinction between being arrested simply for a debt and being arrested for not showing up in court.
I for one, support people going to jail for not showing up in court, under some cir stances. $85 debt cases aren't one of them.
It seems the system is being abused.
From both ends, but granted, Mephistopheles games the system better than the little guy.
IMO it would be well politically for the courts and the police to use better discretion. If it's true (as suggested in the OP) that this particular abuse of civil process is a problem only in a small number of states, then most US states already have their together wrt this.
(Presumably)
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-21-2010 at 05:35 AM. Reason: presumably
Entirely without reference to the data? Eh, the article seemed to suggest that warrants were issued in all cases. If not, or if those warrants were not issued properly, there's obviously a concern there.
I just didn't see anything where it said, "They owed money and went to jail because of owing money".
Are you ing re ed? The article says one of the debtors missed a court hearing. That's probably an understatement because there's usually at least two hearings, along with contempt proceedings, before someone gets thrown in jail.
Instead of rehashing your tired old government-is-evil-overthrow-the-system rage against the machine bull , you should read some of the Supreme Court cases that set out numerous due process protections (notice and a hearing) before saying we're back in colonial times with the debtors prison and whatnot
ing hack ...
A court cannot throw someone in jail for non-payment of debt. Any court that did so would be subject to immediate habeas review and would get overturned in a second.
A court can have numerous hearings where a deadbeat doesn't show up, resulting in the deadbeat being held in contempt of court, and then thrown in jail.
They're two completely different things.
So take care of your and you'll decrease your chance of ending up in the morass that is the American legal system. And, yes, show up for court whenever summoned.
Then again, don't worry. There's always a journalist available who will shade your story to cover for your irresponsibility.
There's nothing illogical with my observation. What is illogical is holding my expression purely to the contents of this thread. Congratulations, you are a pedantic bore.
I must of missed that. I only meant to emphasize RG's own unsupported assumptions coinciding more or less in time with his calling MB a meanie for having assumptions.
Even if I was wrong about those assumptions being unsupported, I thought his treatment of MB was needlessly haughty/petty.
Agree. I think I already acknowledged that.
The universe described by the OP only exists for those who read past the lede. For everyone else, the tragically misleading headline stands all by itself.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-19-2010 at 02:50 PM.
That is the lamest attempt to lay down a smoke screen to cover for one's strawman argument I have seen in a while.
Sorry you don't get a free pass, and if that makes me a pedantic bore, so be it.
I never said we need to fully excuse rank irresponsibility. No one has here. That is your distortion.
Distorting what someone else says/believes, formal logical fallacies aside is just dishonest.
Were you trying to be dishonest, or did good faith just become collateral damage?
I thought it was more of of a floating ascription than a personally directed one. Were you insulted by it, RG?
I was the only person who used the word "judgmental". Maybe I did take a general comment to be personally directed, but the word usage seemed deliberate to me.
Of course, it isn't like I'm being nice. I try to keep things level, but am only human. Some things push my buttons.
ah yes, I see the point now. Carry on.
Fine, from now on I will limit my commentary to the exact content of the thread at hand to make it easier for you.
I wasn't looking for nor need one, champ.
Sorry you don't get a free pass,
Given that you started off your participation in this thread by claiming that I was somehow seeking to be "morally superior" that is rich.
and if that makes me a pedantic bore, so be it.
I never said we need to fully excuse rank irresponsibility. No one has here. That is your distortion.
Distorting what someone else says/believes, formal logical fallacies aside is just dishonest.
Pull the speck out of your own eye first.
Good faith's blood lies on your hands as far as this forum is concerned. Your ham handed attempt to enforce unnecessary rules of conduct as you see fit on a forum in which "pitbull " is a mainstay of the lexicon would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic. Not to mention your incessant personal flaming and then appeals to reason after the fact as if you proffer any semblance of participation in good faith.Were you trying to be dishonest, or did good faith just become collateral damage?
Or, lighten up, Francis and have a beer.
Give it up Marcus Bryant. You are getting owned in this thread.
Rich people get into debt trouble too, but they can afford to hire the lawyers to fight the debt companies, most of which cannot provide a shred of evidence to support their supposed legal standing to collect because they were not the original creditor..
Seriously, if you have a debt company after you...hire a lawyer for less than $1000 to fight your case instead of settling with them for thousands...many will take payments way less than the debt company
Yeah, I probably should do both.
Sorry for the ball busting.
And indeed the article itself will inevitably be adduced as supporting material for the headline, which in very many cases telegraphs the solicited inference(s).The universe described by the OP only exists for those who read past the lede. For everyone else, the tragically misleading headline stands all by itself.
The headline subsumes the actual journalistic claims. Objectivity serves propaganda; the truth, a lie.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-22-2010 at 02:37 AM.
Marcus, I don't think you can say
AND
In the same post.
payday lenders in Texas criminally pursue borrowers:
http://www.texasobserver.org/report-...sue-borrowers/Pursuing, or even threatening, criminal charges against payday and le borrowers is strictly prohibited by Texas law, with very few exceptions. The Texas Cons ution unequivocally states, “No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.”
But new research released this morning by Texas Appleseed shows that criminal charges against payday borrowers for missing payments is common in Texas. Texas Appleseed do ents more than 1,500 criminal complaints of bad check and theft by check allegations filed by payday loan companies in Texas between 2012 and the spring of this year. Many of them resulted in fines, arrest warrants and even jail time.
The research builds on reporting by the Observer published in July 2013, which found 1,700 instances in which payday lenders in Texas have filed criminal complaints against customers. The Observer story prompted an ongoing investigation by the state Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, which regulates the industry in Texas, into one payday loan business, Cash Biz. It also led regulators to issue an advisory bulletin to lenders warning them to stop pursuing criminal charges against their customers.
Texas Appleseed found 13 different payday loan companies pursuing criminal charges in eight different counties, including Travis, Dallas, Harris and Collin. Texas Appleseed filed a complaint today with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the state Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner. The complaint letter, which includes 700 pages of supporting do entation calls for state and federal authorities to launch an investigation and take enforcement action against lenders abusing the law and their customers.
“In addition to their outrageous rates and lending practices, payday loan businesses are illegally using the criminal justice system to coerce repayment form borrowers,” said Ann Baddour of Texas Appleseed. “This directly contravenes state and federal law, which eliminated debtor’s prisons long ago.”
But, but, but, FREE MARKET!!! GUBMINT BAD!!!
(sighs)
These people are predators, pure and simple. The thin defense that they are providing credit to people who would otherwise have none is completely demolished by the immoral levels of interest and fees that are charged.
'em. Shut 'em all down.
Payday Pay-to-Play: How High-Cost Lenders Line the Pockets of Powerful Washington Politicians
A new report from Americans for Financial Reform finds that payday, car le and installment lenders have spent more than $13 million in campaign contributions and lobbying during the 2014 election cycle. The Online Lenders Alliance (OLA) and Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) led the way, with combined contributions of more than $3 million, according to the report, which also lists the top 50 congressional recipients of contributions from the payday lending industry.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is currently drafting new guidelines for payday lending that could protect vulnerable borrowers from the debt trap. Many payday loans carry annual interest rates between 300 and 500 percent and the typical borrower is indebted for more than 200 days per year when their initial loan was only one pay period.
“We are in an exciting moment. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is poised to take action to regulate payday and other quick fix consumer loans,” added Robnett. “But this report lays out one threat to those rules: payday lenders will be working to undermine them and the CFPB, and they have a $13 Million tab open in Congress.”
http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2014/12/afr-report-payday-lenders-have-spent-more-than-13-million-on-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-during-the-current-election-cycle/
CFPB will certainly get almost totally defunded, defanged by Repugs, like the IRS and EPA.
22 States Ask Defense Dept. To Do More To Protect Servicemembers From Predatory Lenders
http://consumerist.com/2014/12/22/22...atory-lenders/
why only protect the military, why not defend ALL people who get screwed/tricked into inescapable, ballooning debt by payday lenders (financed by capitalists and BigBanks) ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
