Return of Debtor's Prison: In jail for being in debt

[Parker2112]

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html?page=1&c=y

In jail for being in debt



Star Tribune



As a sheriff's deputy dumped the contents of
Joy Uhlmeyer's purse into a sealed bag, she
begged to know why she had just been
arrested while driving home to Richfield after
an Easter visit with her elderly mother.

No one had an answer. Uhlmeyer spent a
sleepless night in a frigid Anoka County
holding cell, her hands tucked under her
armpits for warmth. Then, handcuffed in a
squad car, she was taken to downtown
Minneapolis for booking. Finally, after 16
hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted
Uhlmeyer and explained her offense --
missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt.
"They have no right to do this to me," said the
57-year-old patient care advocate, her voice
as soft as a whisper. "Not for a stupid credit
card."

It's not a crime to owe money, and debtors'
prisons were abolished in the United States
in the 19th century. But people are routinely
being thrown in jail for failing to pay debts. In
Minnesota, which has some of the most
creditor-friendly laws in the country, the use
of arrest warrants against debtors has
jumped 60 percent over the past four years,


with 845 cases in 2009, a Star Tribune
analysis of state court data has found.

Not every warrant results in an arrest, but in
Minnesota many debtors spend up to 48
hours in cells with criminals. Consumer
attorneys say such arrests are increasing in
many states, including Arkansas, Arizona
and Washington, driven by a bad economy,
high consumer debt and a growing industry
that buys bad debts and employs every
means available to collect.

Whether a debtor is locked up depends
largely on where the person lives, because
enforcement is inconsistent from state to
state, and even county to county.

In Illinois and southwest Indiana, some
judges jail debtors for missing court-
ordered debt payments. In extreme cases,
people stay in jail until they raise a minimum
payment. In January, a judge sentenced a
Kenney, Ill., man "to indefinite incarceration"
until he came up with $300 toward a lumber
yard debt.

"The law enforcement system has unwittingly
become a tool of the debt collectors," said
Michael Kinkley, an attorney in Spokane,
Wash., who has represented arrested
debtors. "The debt collectors are abusing the

[Parker2112]

system and intimidating people, and law
enforcement is going along with it."

How often are debtors arrested across the
country? No one can say. No national
statistics are kept, and the practice is largely
unnoticed outside legal circles. "My suspicion
is the debt collection industry does not want
the world to know these arrests are
happening, because the practice would be
widely condemned," said Robert Hobbs,
deputy director of the National Consumer
Law Center in Boston.

Debt collectors defend the practice, saying
phone calls, letters and legal actions aren't
always enough to get people to pay.

"Admittedly, it's a harsh sanction," said
Steven Rosso, a partner in the Como Law
Firm of St. Paul, which does collections work.
"But sometimes, it's the only sanction we
have."

Taxpayers foot the bill for arresting and
jailing debtors. In many cases, Minnesota
judges set bail at the amount owed.

In Minnesota, judges have issued arrest
warrants for people who owe as little as $85
-- less than half the cost of housing an
inmate overnight. Debtors targeted for arrest


owed a median of $3,512 in 2009, up from
$2,201 five years ago.

Those jailed for debts may be the least able
to pay.

"It's just one more blow for people who are
already struggling," said Beverly Yang, a Land
of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation staff
attorney who has represented three Illinois
debtors arrested in the past two months.
"They don't like being in court. They don't
have cars. And if they had money to pay
these collectors, they would."

The collection machine

The laws allowing for the arrest of someone
for an unpaid debt are not new.

What is new is the rise of well-funded,
aggressive and centralized collection firms,
in many cases run by attorneys, that buy up
unpaid debt and use the courts to collect.

Three debt buyers -- Unifund CCR Partners,
Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. and Debt
Equities LLC -- accounted for 15 percent of
all debt-related arrest warrants issued in
Minnesota since 2005, court data show. The
debt buyers also file tens of thousands of
other collection actions in the state, seeking

[Parker2112]

court orders to make people pay.

The debts -- often five or six years old -- are
purchased from companies like cellphone
providers and credit card issuers, and cost a
few cents on the dollar. Using automated
dialing equipment and teams of lawyers, the
debt-buyer firms try to collect the debt, plus
interest and fees. A firm aims to collect at
least twice what it paid for the debt to cover
costs. Anything beyond that is profit.

Portfolio Recovery Associates of Norfolk, Va.,
a publicly traded debt buyer with the biggest
profits and market capitalization, earned $44 m
illion last year on $281 million in revenue
-- a 16 percent net margin. Encore Capital
Group, another large debt buyer based in San
Diego, had a margin last year of 10 percent.
By comparison, Wal-Mart's profit margin was
3.5 percent.

Todd Lansky, chief operating officer at
Resurgence Financial LLC, a Northbrook, Ill.-
based debt buyer, said firms like his operate
within the law, which says people who ignore
court orders can be arrested for contempt.
By the time a warrant is issued, a debtor may
have been contacted up to 12 times, he said.

"This is a last-ditch effort to say, 'Look, just
show up in court,'" he said.


Go to court -- or jail

At 9:30 a.m. on a recent weekday morning,
about a dozen people stood in line at the
Hennepin County Government Center in
Minneapolis.

Nearly all of them had received court
judgments for not paying a delinquent debt.
One by one, they stepped forward to fill out a
two-page financial disclosure form that gives
creditors the information they need to
garnish money from their paychecks or bank
accounts.

This process happens several times a week
in Hennepin County. Those who fail to
appear can be held in contempt and an arrest
warrant is issued if a collector seeks one.
Arrested debtors aren't officially charged
with a crime, but their cases are heard in the
same courtroom as drug users.

Greg Williams, who is unemployed and living
on state benefits, said he made the trip
downtown on the advice of his girlfriend who
knew someone who had been arrested for
missing such a hearing.

"I was surprised that the police would waste
time on my petty debts," said Williams, 45, of
Minneapolis, who had a $5,773 judgment

[Parker2112]

from a credit card debt. "Don't they have real
criminals to catch?"

Few debtors realize they can land in jail
simply for ignoring debt-collection legal
matters. Debtors also may not recognize the
names of companies seeking to collect old
debts. Some people are contacted by three or
four firms as delinquent debts are bought
and sold multiple times after the original
creditor writes off the account.

"They may think it's a mistake. They may
think it's a scam. They may not realize how
important it is to respond," said Mary
Spector, a law professor at Southern
Methodist University's Dedman School of Law
in Dallas.

A year ago, Legal Aid attorneys proposed a
change in state law that would have required
law enforcement officials to let debtors fill o
ut financial disclosure forms when they are
apprehended rather than book them into jail.
No legislator introduced the measure.

Joy Uhlmeyer, who was arrested on her way
home from spending Easter with her mother,
said she defaulted on a $6,200 Chase credit
card after a costly divorce in 2006. The firm
seeking payment was Resurgence Financial,
the Illinois debt buyer. Uhlmeyer said she


didn't recognize the name and ignored the
notices.

Uhlmeyer walked free after her nephew
posted $2,500 bail. It took another $187 to
retrieve her car from the city impound lot.
Her 86-year-old mother later asked why she d
idn't call home after leaving Duluth. Not
wanting to tell the truth, Uhlmeyer said her
car broke down and her cell phone died.

"The really maddening part of the whole
experience was the complete lack of i
nformation," she said. "I kept thinking, 'If
there was a warrant out for my arrest, then
why in the world wasn't I told about it?'"

Jailed for $250

One afternoon last spring, Deborah
Poplawski, 38, of Minneapolis was digging in
her purse for coins to feed a downtown
parking meter when she saw the flashing
lights of a Minneapolis police squad car
behind her. Poplawski, a restaurant cook,
assumed she had parked illegally. Instead,
she was headed to jail over a $250 credit
card debt.

Less than a month earlier, she learned by
chance from an employment counselor that
she had an outstanding warrant. Debt

[Parker2112]

Equities, a Golden Valley debt buyer, had
sued her, but she says nobody served her
with court documents. Thanks to interest
and fees, Poplawski was now on the hook for
$1,138.

Though she knew of the warrant and unpaid
debt, "I wasn't equating the warrant with
going to jail, because there wasn't criminal
activity associated with it," she said. "I just
thought it was a civil thing."

She spent nearly 25 hours at the Hennepin
County jail.

A year later, she still gets angry recounting
the experience. A male inmate groped her
behind in a crowded elevator, she said.
Poplawski also was ordered to change into
the standard jail uniform -- gray-white
underwear and orange pants, shirt and socks
-- in a cubicle the size of a telephone booth.
She slept in a room with 12 to 16 women and
a toilet with no privacy. One woman offered
her drugs, she said.

The next day, Poplawski appeared before a
Hennepin County district judge. He told her
to fill out the form listing her assets and bank
account, and released her. Several weeks
later, Debt Equities used this information to
seize funds from her bank account. The firm


didn't return repeated calls seeking a
comment.

"We hear every day about how there's no
money for public services," Poplawski said.
"But it seems like the collectors have found a
way to get the police to do their work."

Threat depends on location

A lot depends on where a debtor lives or is
arrested, as Jamie Rodriguez, 41, a bartender f
rom Brooklyn Park, discovered two years
ago.

Deputies showed up at his house one
evening while he was playing with his 5-year-
old daughter, Nicole. They live in Hennepin
County, where the Sheriff's Office has
enough staff to seek out people with
warrants for civil violations.

If Rodriquez lived in neighboring Wright
County, he could have simply handed the
officers a check or cash for the amount
owed. If he lived in Dakota County, it's likely
no deputy would have shown up because the
Sheriff's Office there says it lacks the staff to
pursue civil debt cases.

Knowing that his daughter and wife were
watching from the window, Rodriguez

[Parker2112]

politely asked the deputies to drive him
around the block, out of sight of his family,
before they handcuffed him. The deputies
agreed.

"No little girl should have to see her daddy
arrested," said Rodriguez, who spent a night
in jail.

"If you talk to 15 different counties, you'll
find 15 different approaches to handling civil
warrants," said Sgt. Robert Shingledecker of
the Dakota County Sheriff's Office.
"Everything is based on manpower."

Local police also can enforce debt-related
warrants, but small towns and some suburbs
often don't have enough officers.

The Star Tribune's comparison of warrant
and booking data suggests that at least 1 in 6
Minnesota debtors at risk for arrest actually
lands in jail, typically for eight hours. The
exact number of such arrests isn't known
because the government doesn't consistently
track what happens to debtor warrants.

"There are no standards here," said Gail
Hillebrand, a senior attorney with the
Consumers Union in San Francisco. "A
borrower who lives on one side of the river
can be arrested while another one goes free.


It breeds disrespect for the law."

Haekyung Nielsen, 27, of Bloomington, said
police showed up at her house on a civil
warrant two weeks after she gave birth
through Caesarean section. A debt buyer had
sent her court papers for an old credit-card
debt while she was in the hospital; Nielsen
said she did not have time to respond.

Her baby boy, Tyler, lay in the crib as she
begged the officer not to take her away.

"Thank God, the police had mercy and left me
and my baby alone," said Nielsen, who later
paid the debt. "But to send someone to arrest
me two weeks after a massive surgery that
takes most women eight weeks to recover
from was just unbelievable."

The second surprise

Many debtors, like Robert Vee, 36, of
Brooklyn Park, get a second surprise after
being arrested -- their bail is exactly the
amount of money owed.

Hennepin County automatically sets bail at
the judgment amount or $2,500, whichever
is less. This policy was adopted four years
ago in response to the high volume of debtor
default cases, say court officials.

[Parker2112]

Some judges say the practice distorts the
purpose of bail, which is to make sure people
show up in court.

"It's certainly an efficient way to collect
debts, but it's also highly distasteful," said
Hennepin County District Judge Jack Nordby.
"The amount of bail should have nothing to
do with the amount of the debt."

Judge Robert Blaeser, chief of the county
court's civil division, said linking bail to debt
streamlines the process because judges
needn't spend time setting bail.

"It's arbitrary," he conceded. "The bigger
question is: Should you be allowed to get an
order from a court for someone to be
arrested because they owe money? You've
got to remember there are people who have
the money but just won't pay a single penny."

If friends or family post a debtor's bail, they
can expect to kiss the money goodbye,
because it often ends up with creditors, who
routinely ask judges for the bail payment.

Vee, a highway construction worker, was
arrested one afternoon in February while
driving his teenage daughter from school to
their home in Brooklyn Park. As he was being
cuffed, Vee said his daughter, who has


severe asthma, started hyperventilating from
the stress.

"All I kept thinking about was whether she
was all right and if she was using her
[asthma] inhaler," he said.

From the Hennepin County jail, he made a
collect call to his landlord, who promised to
bring the bail. It was $1,875.06, the exact
amount of a credit card debt.

Later, Vee was reunited with his distraught
daughter at home. "We hugged for a long
time, and she was bawling her eyes out," he
said.

He still has unpaid medical and credit card
bills and owes about $40,000 on an old
second mortgage. The sight of a squad car in
his rearview mirror is all it takes to set off a
fresh wave of anxiety.

"The question always crosses my mind: 'Are
the cops going to arrest me again?'" he said.
"So long as I've got unpaid bills, the threat is
there."

[email protected] (http://ezurl.co/5071) • 612-673-4308
[email protected] (http://ezurl.co/5081) • 612-673-7192

[Marcus Bryant]

Americans are shocked that not paying back unsecured debt gets them in trouble. More news @11.

[Parker2112]

we need to spend public tax dollars to enforce private debts for unscrupulous debt collectors? Really?

[Trainwreck2100]

Americans are shocked that not paying back unsecured debt gets them in trouble. More news @11.

In this case when the creditors gave them the money they knew prison wasn't a recourse. The original creditors aren't even the plaintiffs its collection agencies that bought it for pennies. What's going on now is collection agencies are serving, many times improperly and getting judgements and the people not showing up and getting judgments against them.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, it's unfair, arbitrary, and capricious. Welcome to American courts circa now.

Again, people are shocked that they aren't able to craft their own payment-free loan without repercussions. Welcome to reality. Want the creditors/collectors/Mephistopheles off your ass? File for bankruptcy.

And as for a problem with using public courts to address private breaches, what planet are you from?

[Parker2112]

Sure, it's unfair, arbitrary, and capricious. Welcome to American courts circa now.

Again, people are shocked that they aren't able to craft their own payment-free loan without repercussions. Welcome to reality. Want the creditors/collectors/Mephistopheles off your ass? File for bankruptcy.

And as for a problem with using public courts to address private breaches, what planet are you from?

Sure, litigation happens, and taxpayers bear part of it. But costs of incarceration are inexcusable.

[Marcus Bryant]

Expecting to get out of paying back your debts without trouble because you didn't manage your money wisely and expecting to not show up to court without penalty are inexcusable.

[Marcus Bryant]

And there exists a legal remedy for individuals who find themselves insolvent and illiquid.

What's the problem?

[Parker2112]

And there exists a legal remedy for individuals who find themselves insolvent and illiquid.

What's the problem?

Did you read the OP? when your dealing with these shitball debt collection co's, there will always be problems with process. Op lists more than a couple.

[Parker2112]

Expecting to get out of paying back your debts without trouble because you didn't manage your money wisely and expecting to not show up to court without penalty are inexcusable.

dont give me that bs. The govt does and prints more cash, corps do it and get bailed out, wall st does it and gets bailed out, then the shit rolls down hill and the little guy on the bottom has to eat it after he loses his job?

Fuck that noise buddy.

Capitalist system cuts two ways. make your money, take your lumps. But we dont need to jail debtors who havent been served properly, or had a chance to be heard.

Fuck that noise too buddy.

[ElNono]

The problem I see is that some of these people claim they received no notice that they were being sued by these debt collectors. If you're getting sued you should be notified and be able to challenge or defend yourself in court before any warrant is issued.

If courts are issuing warrants before summons, then there's definitely a problem.

[Parker2112]

The problem I see is that some of these people claim they received no notice that they were being sued by these debt collectors. If you're getting sued you should be notified and be able to challenge or defend yourself in court before any warrant is issued.

If courts are issuing warrants before summons, then there's definitely a problem.

thats the biggest issue

[Mr. Peabody]

And as for a problem with using public courts to address private breaches, what planet are you from?

It's not the issue of using the courts to the alleged breach of contract. Like you allude to, litigants do that all of the time. But when they do it, they have to hire a lawyer, pay a filing fee, pay for a record, etc. These costs aren't shifted to the tax payers in the county. They are paid for by the person/entity attempting to recover on the breach.

Using the county law enforcement agencies to enforce a private contract without the existence of a criminal violation is a waste of tax payer money. I don't want my tax dollars being spent to house someone in jail at a cost of $150/day to enforce an $80 debt owed to a collection agency.

[Parker2112]

Marcus, I am sure you are familiar with strategic default in the marketplace? It is actually considered GOOD for the marketplace to allow a corp to default if it means less expensive operations taking into account all new expense including damages.

But the little guy gets tagged with this whole "moral" component? Sounds like creditors are in charge of writing society's std.s for acceptable behavior, no?

[Trainwreck2100]

The problem I see is that some of these people claim they received no notice that they were being sued by these debt collectors. If you're getting sued you should be notified and be able to challenge or defend yourself in court before any warrant is issued.

If courts are issuing warrants before summons, then there's definitely a problem.


Improper service is a huge issue with these CAs

[Marcus Bryant]

dont give me that bs. The govt does and prints more cash, corps do it and get bailed out, wall st does it and gets bailed out, then the shit rolls down hill and the little guy on the bottom has to eat it after he loses his job?

Fuck that noise buddy.

Capitalist system cuts two ways. make your money, take your lumps. But we dont need to jail debtors who havent been served properly, or had a chance to be heard.

Fuck that noise too buddy.


So the complaint is that the little guy can't screw someone else over. Grand.

[Parker2112]

So the complaint is that the little guy can't screw someone else over. Grand.

no. the bottom line is that capitalism is risky. No need to send folks to the pokey.

[Trainwreck2100]

So the complaint is that the little guy can't screw someone else over. Grand.

no the original lender is already screwed over. The debt would have been charged off. Its a third party trying to screw over the guy who screwed over the lender.

[Marcus Bryant]

The problem I see is that some of these people claim they received no notice that they were being sued by these debt collectors. If you're getting sued you should be notified and be able to challenge or defend yourself in court before any warrant is issued.

If courts are issuing warrants before summons, then there's definitely a problem.

Sure, there are problems rife throughout the system.

Here's a solution: Don't borrow more than you can afford, and pay your debts when you can and you don't have to worry about dealing with some asshole debt collector. Had most of the delinquent debtors done that instead of expecting a free ride we'd have the few true hard luck cases left (ie medical bills).

And the taxpayers wouldn't have to worry about the legal enforcement costs associated with someone who was irresponsible with their financial decisions.

Turning every instance of actually being held responsible for your actions into some kind of persecution by an Inspector Javert is boorish, yet predictable in this country in 2010.

[Marcus Bryant]

no. the bottom line is that capitalism is risky. No need to send folks to the pokey.

Show up to court when summoned, don't borrow more than you can afford, or file bankruptcy. Problem solved for the folks.

[Parker2112]

try and send a ceo to jail for a corporations nonpayment of debts and see how quick you get the door slammed in your face.

Its a rigged game, and Marcus is spouting the company line. You dont have to buy that moral horseshit MB.

[Parker2112]

Show up to court when summoned, don't borrow more than you can afford, or file bankruptcy. Problem solved for the folks.

I understand, but I just wanted to state my piece about the disparity between business debts and individual debts and the fraudulent moral guilt trip the wealthy impose on the working class.

[Marcus Bryant]

try and send a ceo to jail for a corporations nonpayment of debts and see how quick you get the door slammed in your face.

Its a rigged game, and Marcus is spouting the company line. You dont have to buy that moral horseshit MB.

'Hey, the other guy does it' isn't a persuasive argument.

As for morality, that is your appeal.

[Parker2112]

'Hey, the other guy does it' isn't a persuasive argument.

As for morality, that is your appeal.

you imply its inherently wrong, which implies application of moral judgment. BUT, Its only wrong if the law says so. And if the law favors options in business, the same should apply to individuals. No jailtime for CEOs should mean no jailtime for individuals.

If we can sheild a ceo from default on company debts as a matter of law, lets shield a father in time of unemployment. just sayin.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, it would be nice to see those in positions of power and influence held to account more often.

And it's not like there do not already exist options for those who are not so fortunate.

If it's moral to expect contracts to be upheld, sobeit. The opposite is not liberty.


If we can sheild a ceo from default on company debts as a matter of law, lets shield a father in time of unemployment. just sayin.

Nice summation of your appeal. Maybe Pops should have expected that he could be laid off at some point when he was living on borrowed funds.

[ElNono]

Sure, there are problems rife throughout the system.

Here's a solution: Don't borrow more than you can afford, and pay your debts when you can and you don't have to worry about dealing with some asshole debt collector. Had most of the delinquent debtors done that instead of expecting a free ride we'd have the few true hard luck cases left (ie medical bills).

And the taxpayers wouldn't have to worry about the legal enforcement costs associated with someone who was irresponsible with their financial decisions.

Turning every instance of actually being held responsible for your actions into some kind of persecution by an Inspector Javert is boorish, yet predictable in this country in 2010.

I understand what you're saying, and specifically the case you're pointing to, which is of people that won't declare bankruptcy nor paid the debt, but have extra money sitting there.

But by bastardizing the legal system with inane shortcuts some of these courts are basically doing away with due process, and basically assuming that everyone that owes money is the kind of people you point out above.

Which is obviously very wrong. And the only beneficiaries of doing things this way are these collection agencies which save time and money 'expediting' the process by shitting on our rights.

[byrontx]

Expecting to get out of paying back your debts without trouble because you didn't manage your money wisely and expecting to not show up to court without penalty are inexcusable.

Such a self-righteous, fucked-up attitude. People lose jobs, get sick and cannot work or have that happen to a spouse or loved one. Some people take a chance and try to start a business but fail for some reason other than laziness. It is hardly ever someone running up consumer debt and then not wanting to pay. That concept appeals to you because you are a cold sob. All kinds of things happen that cause people to have problems paying high-interest, unsecured loans. Damn. You just about make me wish some bad shit on your ass. You would come out of it with better character.

Top off what ever disasters they have experienced with throwing them in jail-its fucking unAmerican.

[boutons_deux]

If these people were such bad risks and the lenders were such good businesspeople, why were they lent any money?

This is EXACTLY like the sub-prime mortgage/liar's loans scam, with the lenders knowing full well what they were doing was a scam, fraud.

"its fucking unAmerican."

Only when you believe the myths and lies Americans tell themselves.

Marcus and others here never defend the citizens, everything is always the fault of the individuals. The institutions are always blameless.

"Heard story on the radio" about some decent number of states, about 20?, limiting rates to 24%. One chain of lenders in that state shut itself down, saying it couldn't do business taking only 24% interest.

A lady lender was almost moaning, sounded terribly depressed, Oh The Melodrama!, about how she was prevented from "helping" these poor people with 300% interest loans, and that she her lending self was now out of a job, "it's tough out there". :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

People have a legal out already. Naturally not content to be able to not pay back their debts and blow off court dates, Americans term it "cold" that the fault for the majority of these Dickensian tales be laid where it belongs. Exercise some fucking prudence and common sense. Then perhaps you won't have debt collectors and the courts raining on your great materialist masturabatory parade.

[RandomGuy]

At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''

``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''

``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

``Both very busy, sir.''

``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''

``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?

``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied."

``You wish to be anonymous?''

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge.

[ChuckD]

What will be a shock to corporate America is that if this shit proliferates, the economy may never recover. This economy REQUIRES that people go into debt to consume, and if they're scared away from doing so, the engine will just keep sputtering.

This will kill the economy much more certainly than any tax increase. Bad debt is a part of the cost of doing business.

[RandomGuy]

What will be a shock to corporate America is that if this shit proliferates, the economy may never recover. This economy REQUIRES that people go into debt to consume, and if they're scared away from doing so, the engine will just keep sputtering.

This will kill the economy much more certainly than any tax increase. Bad debt is a part of the cost of doing business.

You missed a few articles posted here concerning the fact that people are actually saving more and borrowing less. (Economist.com article showing Fed report data) That is, I believe, really one of the two core causes for the current lackluster economic performance more than anything else.

The economy does not require people to go into debt to consume; it is just that debt is required for the past pace of consumtion/growth.

We have more than tripled the amount of retail square footage per consumer in the last few decades. That trend will stop, IMO, and quite likely reverse to at least a small degree, if not more.

This is not exactly a bad thing, but it will lead to lingering higher unemployment. This will happen no matter which party is in power, or what they do.

This economy has, again in my opinion, permanently changed a lot of people's behavior, i.e. towards saving.

[RandomGuy]

People have a legal out already. Naturally not content to be able to not pay back their debts and blow off court dates, Americans term it "cold" that the fault for the majority of these Dickensian tales be laid where it belongs. Exercise some fucking prudence and common sense. Then perhaps you won't have debt collectors and the courts raining on your great materialist masturabatory parade.

What if you get sick while uninsured?

The leading cause of bankruptcy is... medical bills, followed by unemployment, neither cause fits neatly into someone indulging in a "materialist masturbatotry parade".

If you like, I can point you to the specific studies done to support that statement.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, it's unfair, arbitrary, and capricious. Welcome to American courts circa now.

Again, people are shocked that they aren't able to craft their own payment-free loan without repercussions. Welcome to reality. Want the creditors/collectors/Mephistopheles off your ass? File for bankruptcy.

And as for a problem with using public courts to address private breaches, what planet are you from?

The problem with this solution is the presumption of abuse in bankruptcy laws.

You must have debts past a certain level relative to income to qualify for the type of bankruptcy that allows you to dismiss debts.

Otherwise you get funneled into the "we aren't going to forgive anything, just make you stretch out the payments forever" kind of bankruptcy.

[RandomGuy]

Show up to court when summoned, don't borrow more than you can afford, or file bankruptcy. Problem solved for the folks.


Jailed for $250

One afternoon last spring, Deborah
Poplawski, 38, of Minneapolis was digging in
her purse for coins to feed a downtown
parking meter when she saw the flashing
lights of a Minneapolis police squad car
behind her. Poplawski, a restaurant cook,
assumed she had parked illegally. Instead,
she was headed to jail over a $250 credit
card debt.

Less than a month earlier, she learned by
chance from an employment counselor that
she had an outstanding warrant. Debt

Judgmental fail.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these people, with very little data, mostly to make yourself feel morally superior.

clap.
clap.
clap.

Now, can you find some data to show what percentage of these people really did "borrow more than they could afford"?

...or did you pull that little gem out of your ass?

Bullshit has been called. Put up or STFU.

[Blake]

Show up to court when summoned

this seemed to be the more consistent problem throughout that article.

[Blake]

Judgmental fail.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these people, with very little data, mostly to make yourself feel morally superior.

clap.
clap.
clap.

Now, can you find some data to show what percentage of these people really did "borrow more than they could afford"?

...or did you pull that little gem out of your ass?

Bullshit has been called. Put up or STFU.



"I wasn't equating the warrant with
going to jail, because there wasn't criminal
activity associated with it,"

I'm wondering what she thought "warrant" meant

[RandomGuy]

this seemed to be the more consistent problem throughout that article.

Yes it was.

That is why I think some of this is a tad overblown.

The problem though, is that most people who work for hourly wages don't get paid time off.

Taking a day off or multiple days off for trials, motions, and so forth = less pay, which probably isn't helping the problem.

Forcing people into jail, for not showing up, also not helping the problem.

All that does is put more money into the pockets of some REALLY corrupt fucks, bail bondsmen.

You think any "fat cat" banker is scummy, look into that little putrid cesspool.

Ick.

[Marcus Bryant]

Judgmental fail.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these people, with very little data, mostly to make yourself feel morally superior.

clap.
clap.
clap.

Now, can you find some data to show what percentage of these people really did "borrow more than they could afford"?

...or did you pull that little gem out of your ass?

Bullshit has been called. Put up or STFU.


So they could afford it, but chose not to pay and also ignore a court summons?

But one musn't be seen as "judgmental" for pointing out the obvious.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm wondering what she thought "warrant" meant

Why, we musn't expect people to be mature about their personal affairs, including their own liberty. Rather, we must excuse rank irresponsibility with bellyaching about judgmentalism.

[RandomGuy]

Why, we musn't expect people to be mature about their personal affairs, including their own liberty. Rather, we must excuse rank irresponsibility with bellyaching about judgmentalism.

Description of Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Congratulations. You have succeeded in debunking an idea/opinion that no one has.

Do you base all of your opinions on pure illogical arguments, or just most of them?

[RandomGuy]

So they could afford it, but chose not to pay and also ignore a court summons?

But one musn't be seen as "judgmental" for pointing out the obvious.

People obviously should pay their debts, and should not take on more debt than they can reasonably afford to.

Your problem is that you implied that everybody in trouble with unpaid debts was completely irresponsible in some way. Feel free to correct me on this.

I think you say that because you want to feel morally superior by being passing a judgment on others, as opposed to saying that because you have some data to support that.

If you do not or cannot provide data to support your opinion, I think it is safe to assume the former.

Do you think that everybody in trouble with unpaid debts got there because they were irresponsible?

[RandomGuy]

I will also readily acknowledge that some people really did take on more than they could afford. Some really were morons about it, straight up. That is an easy case to make, and they have all sorts of reality shows that provide a ready stream of anecdotal evidence to support that.

BUT

Not everybody in trouble got that way because they were being morons with debt.

[Winehole23]

That's all beside the point. The real question is whether they ended up in jail for being in debt, or ignoring court summonses.

If the latter is true, as a number of posters seem to have concluded entirely without reference to the data, MB's take seems amply justified to me.

[RandomGuy]

That's all beside the point. The real question is whether they ended up in jail for being in debt, or ignoring court summonses.

If the latter is true, as a number of posters seem to have concluded entirely without reference to the data, MB's take seems amply justified to me.


Sure, it's unfair, arbitrary, and capricious. Welcome to American courts circa now.

Again, people are shocked that they aren't able to craft their own payment-free loan without repercussions. Welcome to reality. Want the creditors/collectors/Mephistopheles off your ass? File for bankruptcy.

And as for a problem with using public courts to address private breaches, what planet are you from?


Americans are shocked that not paying back unsecured debt gets them in trouble.

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 circumstances. $85 debt cases aren't one of them.

It seems the system is being abused.

[Winehole23]

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 shit together wrt this.

(Presumably)

[LnGrrrR]

That's all beside the point. The real question is whether they ended up in jail for being in debt, or ignoring court summonses.

If the latter is true, as a number of posters seem to have concluded entirely without reference to the data, MB's take seems amply justified to me.

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".

[vy65]

try and send a ceo to jail for a corporations nonpayment of debts and see how quick you get the door slammed in your face.

Its a rigged game, and Marcus is spouting the company line. You dont have to buy that moral horseshit MB.

Are you fucking retarded? 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 bullshit, 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

fucking hack ...

[vy65]

That's all beside the point. The real question is whether they ended up in jail for being in debt, or ignoring court summonses.

If the latter is true, as a number of posters seem to have concluded entirely without reference to the data, MB's take seems amply justified to me.

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.

[Marcus Bryant]

So take care of your shit 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.

[Marcus Bryant]

Congratulations. You have succeeded in debunking an idea/opinion that no one has.

Do you base all of your opinions on pure illogical arguments, or just most of them?

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.

[Winehole23]

Entirely without reference to the data? Eh, the article seemed to suggest that warrants were issued in all cases.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.

...if those warrants were not issued properly, there's obviously a concern there.Agree. I think I already acknowledged that.

I just didn't see anything where it said, "They owed money and went to jail because of owing money".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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

That is the lamest attempt to lay down a smoke screen to cover for one's strawman argument I have seen in a while.


we must excuse rank irresponsibility with bellyaching about judgmentalism.

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?

[Winehole23]

I thought it was more of of a floating ascription than a personally directed one. Were you insulted by it, RG?

[RandomGuy]

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.

[Winehole23]

ah yes, I see the point now. Carry on.

[Marcus Bryant]

That is the lamest attempt to lay down a smoke screen to cover for one's strawman argument I have seen in a while.


Fine, from now on I will limit my commentary to the exact content of the thread at hand to make it easier for you.





Sorry you don't get a free pass,


I wasn't looking for nor need one, champ.





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.


Given that you started off your participation in this thread by claiming that I was somehow seeking to be "morally superior" that is rich.

Pull the speck out of your own eye first.




Were you trying to be dishonest, or did good faith just become collateral damage?

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 bitch" 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.

Or, lighten up, Francis and have a beer.

[rascal]

Give it up Marcus Bryant. You are getting owned in this thread.

[Nbadan]

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..

[Nbadan]

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

[RandomGuy]

Or, lighten up, Francis and have a beer.

Yeah, I probably should do both.

Sorry for the ball busting.

[Winehole23]

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.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).

[Winehole23]

The headline subsumes the actual journalistic claims. Objectivity serves propaganda; the truth, a lie.

[Winehole23]

http://www.alivenotdead.com/attachments/2010/02/13/16/71157_201002131603481.gif

[LnGrrrR]

Marcus, I don't think you can say


Good faith's blood lies on your hands as far as this forum is concerned.

AND


Or, lighten up, Francis and have a beer.

In the same post. :lol

[Winehole23]

payday lenders in Texas criminally pursue borrowers:


Pursuing, or even threatening, criminal charges against payday and title borrowers is strictly prohibited by Texas law, with very few exceptions. The Texas Constitution unequivocally states (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.18), “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 documents 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 (http://www.texasobserver.org/cash-fast-how-taking-out-a-payday-loan-could-land-you-in-jail/) published in July 2013, which found 1,700 instances in which payday lenders in Texas have filed criminal complaints against customers. The Observer story (http://www.texasobserver.org/cash-fast-how-taking-out-a-payday-loan-could-land-you-in-jail/) 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 (http://www.texasobserver.org/state-regulators-issue-a-warning-to-rogue-payday-loan-shops/) 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 documentation 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.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/report-texas-payday-lenders-prosecutors-team-criminally-pursue-borrowers/

[RandomGuy]

payday lenders in Texas criminally pursue borrowers:

http://www.texasobserver.org/report-texas-payday-lenders-prosecutors-team-criminally-pursue-borrowers/

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.

Fuck 'em. Shut 'em all down.

[boutons_deux]

Payday Pay-to-Play: How High-Cost Lenders Line the Pockets of Powerful Washington Politicians

A new report (http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/blogs/wp-content/ourfinancialsecurity.org/uploads/2014/12/Payday-pay-to-play-final.pdf) from Americans for Financial Reform finds that payday, car title 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.

[boutons_deux]

22 States Ask Defense Dept. To Do More To Protect Servicemembers From Predatory Lenders

http://consumerist.com/2014/12/22/22-states-ask-defense-dept-to-do-more-to-protect-servicemembers-from-predatory-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) ?

[boutons_deux]

Online Payday Lending Companies To Pay $21 Million To Settle Deception Charges, Must Waive $285M In Loans


The FTC announced (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/online-payday-lending-companies-pay-21-million-settle-federal?utm_source=govdelivery) that AMG Services, Inc. and MNE Services, Inc. will pay $21 million and waive another $285 million in charges that were assessed but yet not collected in order to settle accusations they violated the law by charging consumers undisclosed and inflated fees.

According to the FTC complaint [PDF (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/04/ftc-charges-payday-lending-scheme-piling-inflated-fees-borrowers)], the defendants violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting to consumers how much loans would cost them.

For example, the defendants’ contract stated that a $300 loan would cost $390 to repay, but the companies actually charged consumes $975 to repay the loan.

The FTC also accuses the companies of violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to accurately disclose the annual percentage rate and other loan terms. The complaint claims the companies violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by making unauthorized debits from consumers’ bank account a condition of the loans.

In addition to the fine and waived fees, the settlement includes broad prohibitions barring the defendants from misrepresenting the terms of any loan product, including the loan’s payment schedule, the total amount the consumer will owe, the interest rate, annual percentage rates or finance charges, and any other material facts.

http://consumerist.com/2015/01/16/online-payday-lending-companies-to-pay-21-million-to-settle-deception-charges-must-waive-285m-in-loans/

[Winehole23]

I'm thrilled to see my old pal Vanita Gupta at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department targeting excessive fines and fees and debtors' prison policies. See New York Times coverage (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/justice-dept-condemns-profit-minded-court-policies-targeting-the-poor.html), a letter sent by DOJ (https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download) to chief justices and court administrators chastising them for using arrest warrants for collections, and here's m (https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/content/impact-court-fines-and-fees)ore background (https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/content/impact-court-fines-and-fees) from the DOJ. Noted the Times, "The issue has helped forge alliances between liberal civil rights groups and conservative organizations. Grover Norquist, the conservative activist, spoke last year at a White House summit meeting on poverty and incarceration. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian organization, has brought lawsuits (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/lawsuit-accuses-missouri-city-of-fining-homeowners-to-raise-revenue.html) accusing cities of using court fines to raise revenue."http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/03/debtors-prisons-robot-law-flying-pigs.html

[rmt]

Could we please throw our politicians in prison for the $19 trillion debt?

[boutons_deux]

Could we please throw our politicians in prison for the $19 trillion debt?

"deficits don't matter" -- dickhead (starting bogus wars and deepest tax cut for wealthy, including himself)

[baseline bum]

Could we please throw our politicians in prison for the $19 trillion debt?

Too late, Reagan is already dead.

[Warlord23]

Could we please throw our politicians in prison for the $19 trillion debt?

I'm probably wasting my breath but here goes nothing.

Before you spout talking points about the national debt, please try and understand the debt-based monetary system that is used all over the world. In this system, the existence of money is mainly due to the existence of debt. That 19 trillion (along with a lot of corporate and private debt) is the reason there is money in your savings account or your 401k.

This video does a good job of explaining how we got here. And neither Trump nor any of the other charlatans can eliminate this debt. The only thing they can try (which is what Obama has been reasonably good at) is to lower the annual deficit and slow the growth of debt relative to GDP. We are stuck with this system till we decide to do away with it.

jqvKjsIxT_8

[boutons_deux]

"We are stuck with this system till we decide to do away with it."

OUR decisions don't matter.

The banks create/lend money with "fractional reserve" banking so essentially the USA, the planet are paying eternal interest to the banks, which own government.

[Wild Cobra]

Too late, Reagan is already dead.

Idiot alert.

Most of the debt that increased during Reagan's watch was because of double digit return rates on government bonds, cause by the prior administration.

[baseline bum]

Idiot alert.

Most of the debt that increased during Reagan's watch was because of double digit return rates on government bonds, cause by the prior administration.

The Republican Crusader swoops in with his revisionist history!

[boutons_deux]

Idiot alert.

Most of the debt that increased during Reagan's watch was because of double digit return rates on government bonds, cause by the prior administration.

nope, 80s Repugs cut taxes and increased spending, switching from tax and spend, to borrow and spend (borrowing = selling bonds to the wealthy just as the VRWC/1% wanted)

[ElNono]

Too late, Reagan is already dead.

For a good part of the GOP, zombie Ronnie lives on though

[boutons_deux]

For a good part of the GOP, zombie Ronnie lives on though

no, "He's Dead, Jim"

Repugs idolize, MYTHologize St Ronnie, just like the Repugs live in a world of bullshit myths and lies. St Ronnie was so far left of today's Repugs, Kock Bros would primary him.

[rmt]

It was supposed to be a joke.

[baseline bum]

no, "He's Dead, Jim"

Repugs idolize, MYTHologize St Ronnie, just like the Repugs live in a world of bullshit myths and lies. St Ronnie was so far left of today's Repugs, Kock Bros would primary him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTa8H6vAMyQ

[DMX7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTa8H6vAMyQ

Totally. They would have a near Trump-like panic attack.

[Winehole23]

The problem I see is that some of these people claim they received no notice that they were being sued by these debt collectors. If you're getting sued you should be notified and be able to challenge or defend yourself in court before any warrant is issued.

If courts are issuing warrants before summons, then there's definitely a problem.Did you see this story? There's a judge in Kansas who lets debt collectors run his courtroom.


When I asked ARSI about how attorneys decide to request warrants, Joshua Shea, who is general counsel, told me that they don’t. The judge can choose to issue one if court orders are not followed, he said. But Casement said the opposite, telling me that he gave the choice to the attorneys. “I’m not ordering a bench warrant. My decision is to give them that option,” Casement told me. “Whether they exercise it is up to them, but they have my blessing if that’s what they want to do.”
https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-debt-collectors-decide-who-gets-arrested-coffeyville-kansas/

[ElNono]

Did you see this story? There's a judge in Kansas who lets debt collectors run his courtroom.

https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-debt-collectors-decide-who-gets-arrested-coffeyville-kansas/

It's always these little towns running these scams... uneducated judge, co-opted by a lawyer... eventually somebody appeals to federal court and we end up with some semblance of justice.

What's worse, it always affects the poor and needy the most.

Thanks for sharing.

[Winehole23]

"private probation"

1391410349707079681

[Winehole23]

1390678817702825995