Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Caroli at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 Report it if you feel it is warranted. Or, I think this is really about trying ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2017, 09:33 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Report it if you feel it is warranted.
Or, I think this is really about trying a menial personal jab regardless of how ineffectual.



There is no dispute with your description, up to this point.




The article did not quote any additional evidence offered to the court.
You blindly assume that what the article doesn't mention means it doesn't exist.




QUIT with the strawman arguments already.
NOBODY is asking for the court's "earlier determination" to be changed.
SHE STILL OWES THE MONEY.

What this is about is the legal consequences to owing money.
A SCOTUS ruling and passed legislation PROHIBIT tossing somebody in jail for failure to pay with only one exception.
IF the person is refusing to pay when they are ABLE to pay, THEN they can go to jail.
This has never been proven.
UNTIL it is proven, she cannot be thrown in jail for failure to pay.




Again, you are committing two fallacies here:
1) You are assuming the article exhaustively listed all the evidence she provided to the court. This is a bad assumption as the vast majority of articles do NOT do that.
2) The burden of proof is on the government.
It's on the government to prove that she didn't pay but was able to pay. There is no evidence shown for that.
It is not the insult, it is the hypocrisy of the moderator warning me for insulting then indulging in personal insults. A simple apology is warranted. It would be silly for me to "report it" to a forum where I have no visibility of deliberations or voice in them.

You stipulate to the facts as presented including the court's determination that the defendant had the ability to make payments. Indeed, the defendant made 5 payments demonstrating her ability to pay. There is no issue with proof that she had the ability to pay her fine at the time the determination was made. The government satisfied the burden of proof.

After missing at least one payment the defendant came to the court pleading changed circumstances, her employer with a market capitalization of over $3 billion was giving her bad paychecks. There is no presumption of veracity for the defendant's story. The obligation is on the defendant to offer evidence supporting why the court order should be changed. There is no legal obligation to accept the defendant's claim without question, court orders cannot be changed just on the defendant's word.

There is no blind assumption the defendant offered no evidence, it is a deduction based on the facts at hand. The assumption is that the defendant ought to be able to avoid paying her fine and avoid jail based on a claim she could not pay. That would render the courts powerless to enforce sentences. Of course that is the agenda, create effective immunity for anyone who claims poverty.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2017, 01:00 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,722
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,843 Times in 8,982 Posts
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It is not the insult, it is the hypocrisy of the moderator warning me for insulting then indulging in personal insults. A simple apology is warranted. It would be silly for me to "report it" to a forum where I have no visibility of deliberations or voice in them.
Can you show me where you have apologized?
Otherwise, you're demanding a courtesy you yourself don't show...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You stipulate to the facts as presented including the court's determination that the defendant had the ability to make payments.
The defendant had the ability to make payments, by making 5 previous payments.
The current issue is whether the defendant currently has the capability to make payments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Indeed, the defendant made 5 payments demonstrating her ability to pay. There is no issue with proof that she had the ability to pay her fine at the time the determination was made. The government satisfied the burden of proof.
This is nonsensical.
By this standard, if somebody has been able to make payments in the past it's blindly assumed that they currently have that capability in the present.
There is no logic to that assessment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
After missing at least one payment the defendant came to the court pleading changed circumstances, her employer with a market capitalization of over $3 billion was giving her bad paychecks. There is no presumption of veracity for the defendant's story. The obligation is on the defendant to offer evidence supporting why the court order should be changed. There is no legal obligation to accept the defendant's claim without question, court orders cannot be changed just on the defendant's word.

The burden of proof is on the court.
Innocent until proven guilty
You are assuming she is guilty of refusing to pay the fine while being able to pay the fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
There is no blind assumption the defendant offered no evidence, it is a deduction based on the facts at hand.
You are assuming the article exhaustively listed every piece of evidence she provided.
Which is nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The assumption is that the defendant ought to be able to avoid paying her fine and avoid jail based on a claim she could not pay. That would render the courts powerless to enforce sentences. Of course that is the agenda, create effective immunity for anyone who claims poverty.
Do you comprehend that it is possible for our government to get information about a defendant like bank account balances and transaction history?

So this claim of "powerless" is b.s. There has been no perceivable presentation of any evidence that she has the capability to pay.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2017, 09:02 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Can you show me where you have apologized?
Otherwise, you're demanding a courtesy you yourself don't show...



The defendant had the ability to make payments, by making 5 previous payments.
The current issue is whether the defendant currently has the capability to make payments.



This is nonsensical.
By this standard, if somebody has been able to make payments in the past it's blindly assumed that they currently have that capability in the present.
There is no logic to that assessment.




The burden of proof is on the court.
Innocent until proven guilty
You are assuming she is guilty of refusing to pay the fine while being able to pay the fine.



You are assuming the article exhaustively listed every piece of evidence she provided.
Which is nonsense.



Do you comprehend that it is possible for our government to get information about a defendant like bank account balances and transaction history?

So this claim of "powerless" is b.s. There has been no perceivable presentation of any evidence that she has the capability to pay.
The remark you upbraided me over was made about a commentator that has me on ignore. Who am I supposed to apologize to? You? As I wrote earlier and you deliberately overlooked, it is not the insult, it is the hypocrisy that deserves an apology. Don't worry, my ignore list has always been empty.

Again the issue is not one of guilty or innocence, the defendant wants the court to change it's order for her to make payments based on her claim of changed circumstances. By the absurd construct that she might be telling the truth about her situation the court is supposed to in effect allow her to forego making payments pending an investigation as to whether her multibillion $ employer is writing her bad paychecks. Any claim of poverty ought to in effect suspend the court order, no proof required.

You keep insisting the article not mentioning the defendant presented evidence doesn't preclude the possibility she presented evidence supporting her claim while at the same time insisting the court is obligated to investigate the veracity of her claim. It can't be both. If she presented evidence her employer was failing to pay her, then what is the court supposed to investigate? The court would determine if the evidence is credible enough to warrant changing the court ordered payments order. In the far more likely case she presented no evidence to back her claim, the court rejected her unsupported claim of inability to pay.

What the ACLU suit is proposing is a treadmill for the court that makes it impossible to collect fines or jail anyone for failing to pay. All the defendant has to do is plead changed circumstances to be relieved of the obligation while the court investigates then concoct a different story of poverty once the investigation concludes because remember, no one can be sent to jail if they claim inability to pay at the moment of the hearing.

A little friendly advice for you. Stop digging.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2017, 12:44 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,722
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,843 Times in 8,982 Posts
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The remark you upbraided me over was made about a commentator that has me on ignore. Who am I supposed to apologize to? You? As I wrote earlier and you deliberately overlooked, it is not the insult, it is the hypocrisy that deserves an apology. Don't worry, my ignore list has always been empty.
That's not something that keeps me up at night...
I didn't ask if you apologized in that one specific instance you have chosen to cherry pick.
I asked you a general question. Show me where you have apologized.

Some people make passive-aggressive whining an art form.
You aren't there, but you're obviously a practitioner...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Again the issue is not one of guilty or innocence...
YES. It really, really, really is.
The court can ONLY put her in jail if she can pay but is refusing to pay.
She needs to be "guilty" of that.

YOU have presumed her to be guilty of that by the defacto b.s. argument that she has not presented enough evidence to prove she is not guilty of that.

The thing you fail to appreciate is it's the court's responsibility to prove that.
It's not her responsibility to prove she is not guilty of that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
... the defendant wants the court to change it's order ...
She wanted to pay $50 in a payment as opposed to $100. She wanted to pay based on what she had the capability to...
Either way, the government would have gotten its money. Just taking a longer time.
So I guess we should shoot people now for trying to negotiate their payment amount...

She has failed to make a payment.
THAT is ALL that this about.
People fail to make payments on time every day in this country.
The vast majority do not go to jail for it.
THAT is what this is about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
... for her to make payments based on her claim of changed circumstances. By the absurd construct that she might be telling the truth about her situation the court is supposed to in effect allow her to forego making payments pending an investigation as to whether her multibillion $ employer is writing her bad paychecks. Any claim of poverty ought to in effect suspend the court order, no proof required.
Nope. Not what I am arguing.

You habitually argue against strawman.
I've told you in the past that I will refuse to quote your b.s. lies regarding my arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You keep insisting the article not mentioning the defendant presented evidence doesn't preclude the possibility she presented evidence supporting her claim while at the same time insisting the court is obligated to investigate the veracity of her claim. It can't be both.
Why not?
They are actually two separate mechanisms.

Articles are frequently limited in the amount of space they can take up. Also, for readability. Nobody wants to dig into the mundane details when the summary is desired.

The second is about the burden of proof.
If the court wants to put her in jail, the court has the burden of proof.

Two separate mechanisms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
If she presented evidence her employer was failing to pay her, then what is the court supposed to investigate?

You are again confusing the situation.
IF THE COURT WANTS TO IMPRISON HER for failing to pay, then the court has the responsibility to investigate.
THAT is the driving factor.

If they don't want to investigate, then they don't have to. But by consequence, if they don't have the evidence to satisfy their burden of proof, they can't put her in jail.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The court would determine if the evidence is credible enough to warrant changing the court ordered payments order. In the far more likely case she presented no evidence to back her claim, the court rejected her unsupported claim of inability to pay.
You are designating what you want to believe as "credible" with no logic behind it.
The court showed disregard for her capability to pay.
There is NO STATEMENT from the court that they dispute her lack of capability to pay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
What the ACLU suit is proposing is a treadmill for the court that makes it impossible to collect fines or jail anyone for failing to pay.
This is beyond stupid.
The government would use the same recourses that every other creditor utilizes regarding getting their bills paid.
That's it.

Actually, the court would have the additional capability to imprison non-payers IFF they can prove that the person has the capability to pay.
Like I said (and you predictably ignored), it should be easy for the government to grab bank statements to review if they feel the money is truly there.
PROVE THEIR CASE before imprisoning somebody.
That's the requirement in the first place.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 08:49 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
That's not something that keeps me up at night...
I didn't ask if you apologized in that one specific instance you have chosen to cherry pick.
I asked you a general question. Show me where you have apologized.

Some people make passive-aggressive whining an art form.
You aren't there, but you're obviously a practitioner...



YES. It really, really, really is.
The court can ONLY put her in jail if she can pay but is refusing to pay.
She needs to be "guilty" of that.

YOU have presumed her to be guilty of that by the defacto b.s. argument that she has not presented enough evidence to prove she is not guilty of that.

The thing you fail to appreciate is it's the court's responsibility to prove that.
It's not her responsibility to prove she is not guilty of that.



She wanted to pay $50 in a payment as opposed to $100. She wanted to pay based on what she had the capability to...
Either way, the government would have gotten its money. Just taking a longer time.
So I guess we should shoot people now for trying to negotiate their payment amount...

She has failed to make a payment.
THAT is ALL that this about.
People fail to make payments on time every day in this country.
The vast majority do not go to jail for it.
THAT is what this is about.



Nope. Not what I am arguing.

You habitually argue against strawman.
I've told you in the past that I will refuse to quote your b.s. lies regarding my arguments.



Why not?
They are actually two separate mechanisms.

Articles are frequently limited in the amount of space they can take up. Also, for readability. Nobody wants to dig into the mundane details when the summary is desired.

The second is about the burden of proof.
If the court wants to put her in jail, the court has the burden of proof.

Two separate mechanisms.




You are again confusing the situation.
IF THE COURT WANTS TO IMPRISON HER for failing to pay, then the court has the responsibility to investigate.
THAT is the driving factor.

If they don't want to investigate, then they don't have to. But by consequence, if they don't have the evidence to satisfy their burden of proof, they can't put her in jail.



You are designating what you want to believe as "credible" with no logic behind it.
The court showed disregard for her capability to pay.
There is NO STATEMENT from the court that they dispute her lack of capability to pay.



This is beyond stupid.
The government would use the same recourses that every other creditor utilizes regarding getting their bills paid.
That's it.

Actually, the court would have the additional capability to imprison non-payers IFF they can prove that the person has the capability to pay.
Like I said (and you predictably ignored), it should be easy for the government to grab bank statements to review if they feel the money is truly there.
PROVE THEIR CASE before imprisoning somebody.
That's the requirement in the first place.
I pointed out your specific instance of hypocrisy and requested an apology but your titanic ego will not allow it so you babble on childishly trying to blame me for not apologizing in general.

No matter how many times you write it the issue is not guilt or innocence, that phase of the trial is over, the defendant pled guilty, really. She is really, really asking for the court order to be changed not pleading innocent, the court rightfully requires evidence to change its earlier finding. People petition the court to changes court orders based on changed circumstances such as in divorces involving alimony. It is simply absurd to claim the court must investigate to determine the veracity of the claim, that is the petitioners responsibility, really.

When confronted with the contradiction in claiming the defendant could have presented evidence and it's the court's responsibility to investigate her unsupported claim you resort to your standard tactic, name calling and deleting it from the reply. And oh yes, repeating the same debunked blather like it is gospel.

Yes people collect debts all the time with no one going to jail. What is at issue here is a fine for breaking the law, that is really not the same. This is an obvious difference but you are flailing around trying to find any rhetorical excuse to rescue a failed argument.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:17 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,722
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,843 Times in 8,982 Posts
Post Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I pointed out your specific instance of hypocrisy and requested an apology but your titanic ego will not allow it so you babble on childishly trying to blame me for not apologizing in general.
No.
I asked you to demonstrate YOUR lack of hypocrisy by showing where you had yourself apologized. You demand a courtesy I have never seen you extend to others.

Regardless, this passive aggressive victimization you portray is boring. I called your rant idiotic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
No matter how many times you write it the issue is not guilt or innocence, that phase of the trial is over, the defendant pled guilty, really.
There are two things going on here.
The first is the traffic offense. No question of guilt.
The second is the issue of is she able to pay but refusing to, to which the sentence can be jail.
Of the latter offense, you are presuming her guilty because you assume she has not proven innocence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
She is really, really asking for the court order to be changed not pleading innocent, the court rightfully requires evidence to change its earlier finding.
Your approach is ridiculously myopic and needlessly rigid.
She is not demanding to be identified as innocent of the traffic offense.
She can't pay the amount requested per month, so she is requesting to pay a lesser amount per month (and thus have to pay at least twice as many payments).

The government would STILL get all of its money.
Just lower payments which most bill collectors would identify with.

What's really disgusting here is that you have no problem with the court "changing" its sentence (from fine to jail). But lowering her payment is egregious?



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It is simply absurd to claim the court must investigate to determine the veracity of the claim, that is the petitioners responsibility, really.
What is absurd is that the law requires that she be capable of paying but refusing to pay in order to jail her for this situation.
You are happy to ASSUME her guilty of that while no evidence of that is shown.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
When confronted with the contradiction in claiming the defendant could have presented evidence and it's the court's responsibility to investigate her unsupported claim you resort to ...
Again, I'm not quoting your strawman lies.

I resorted to pointing out that:
a) It's the court's burden to show proof before jailing her, AND
b) Pointing out that you have no idea what evidence she actually presented at trial. News articles are typically not exhaustive lists of evidence presented and instead only incorporate summaries.

THAT is what I actually did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Yes people collect debts all the time with no one going to jail. What is at issue here is a fine for breaking the law, that is really not the same.
Actually, it is.
The whole point of the law and the court rulings on "debtor's prison" is to ensure that the government doesn't abuse its capability to collect debts.
You try to circumvent this law by ignoring the governmental requirement to prove the person has the capability to pay.

The truly stupid part is you have turned this from:
a) The government could have gotten its money with lower payments, INTO
b) Now the government loses that money and spends additional money jailing a woman, while risking her job loss and potentially adding her onto welfare systems to compensate.

It's ridiculous!
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2017, 09:22 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No.
I asked you to demonstrate YOUR lack of hypocrisy by showing where you had yourself apologized. You demand a courtesy I have never seen you extend to others.

Regardless, this passive aggressive victimization you portray is boring. I called your rant idiotic.



There are two things going on here.
The first is the traffic offense. No question of guilt.
The second is the issue of is she able to pay but refusing to, to which the sentence can be jail.
Of the latter offense, you are presuming her guilty because you assume she has not proven innocence.



Your approach is ridiculously myopic and needlessly rigid.
She is not demanding to be identified as innocent of the traffic offense.
She can't pay the amount requested per month, so she is requesting to pay a lesser amount per month (and thus have to pay at least twice as many payments).

The government would STILL get all of its money.
Just lower payments which most bill collectors would identify with.

What's really disgusting here is that you have no problem with the court "changing" its sentence (from fine to jail). But lowering her payment is egregious?




What is absurd is that the law requires that she be capable of paying but refusing to pay in order to jail her for this situation.
You are happy to ASSUME her guilty of that while no evidence of that is shown.



Again, I'm not quoting your strawman lies.

I resorted to pointing out that:
a) It's the court's burden to show proof before jailing her, AND
b) Pointing out that you have no idea what evidence she actually presented at trial. News articles are typically not exhaustive lists of evidence presented and instead only incorporate summaries.

THAT is what I actually did.



Actually, it is.
The whole point of the law and the court rulings on "debtor's prison" is to ensure that the government doesn't abuse its capability to collect debts.
You try to circumvent this law by ignoring the governmental requirement to prove the person has the capability to pay.

The truly stupid part is you have turned this from:
a) The government could have gotten its money with lower payments, INTO
b) Now the government loses that money and spends additional money jailing a woman, while risking her job loss and potentially adding her onto welfare systems to compensate.

It's ridiculous!
The issue is your hypocrisy, not your allegations of mine. You desperately want to change the subject by throwing up some requirement that I prove my purity as if that was pertinent to the discussion of your obvious hypocrisy. As I wrote earlier your titanic ego will not allow you to admit your hypocrisy so as predicted you merely try to change the subject.

Another turgid screed rehashing the same nonsense including the same arrogant dismissal of the rebuttal to your claims as some variation of straw men or lies.
It's ridiculous.

The court issued an order for her to make payments after she pled guilty to the traffic offense, finding that she had the ability to pay at the time. She validated the court's decision by making 5 payments. She then violated the court order by missing at least one payment. There is no question she violated the court order making her liable for jail time. She then came before the court pleading mitigating circumstances to avoid jail time for violating the court order, no question of guilt or innocence. As you have written multiple times she still owed the fine. But suddenly, the court, not the defendant is obligated to "investigate" is her claim of mitigation is valid.

According to the fun house mirror interpretation of the SCOTUS enjoinder against sending people to jail when they cannot pay their fines, a standing court order ought to be suspended indefinitely while the court investigates the veracity of the defendant's claim of poverty. The court order not the defendant claim is presumed invalid, at least temporarily.

The court must prove it crazy system of justice that gives anyone pleading poverty a free pass from paying their fine, if the investigation concludes the defendant is able to pay all they need to do is offer another excuse to restart the investigation cycle. Your honor, I was abducted by aliens and was so traumatized I had to quit my job so I cannot pay. Under the court must prove it system, the court would be obligated to prove affirmatively the defendant was not abducted by aliens. My, what a "fair" and efficient system of justice. Alien abduction is an exaggeration but it is not that far removed on the credibility scale from claiming paychecks from a $3 billion corporation bounced.

Speaking of bounced paychecks, how is the defendant going to pay her fine using them? You confidently state the defendant will pay her fine "eventually" how is she supposed to do that working a job that doesn't pay her? Speaking of which, why is she continuing to work for an employer that doesn't pay her? Oh wait, no matter how implausible the court must investigate the claim.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 06-19-2017, 11:40 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,722
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,843 Times in 8,982 Posts
Post Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The issue is your hypocrisy, not your allegations of mine.
No.
The issue is: "ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca"

You want to make this about me so I decided to give you a dose of your own medicine. Asking you to demonstrate that you have supplied for anybody what you demand of me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Another turgid screed rehashing the same nonsense including the same arrogant dismissal of the rebuttal to your claims as some variation of straw men or lies.
What's amusing is that you don't repudiate where I pointed out your claims were strawman or lies.
Instead, you just complain about it.

Here are the underlying pillars of your problem.
1) INNOCENCE until proven guilty.
** Note, this regards CAPABILITY TO PAY BUT REFUSING TO as that is what she will be thrown in jail for. And that is what is clearly required before she can be thrown into jail.
You keep trying to pretend that being proven guilty of the parking fine is sufficient, but that's nonsensical. It obliterates our "innocent until proven guilty requirement.
To require SHE proves she cannot pay changes our system into guilty until proven innocent, which should be anathema to our American justice system.

2) Based on both SCOTUS and passed legislation, the only way she can be thrown in jail is based on being able to pay and failing to.
The fact that she was seeking a lower payment shows willingness to pay, which obliterates this position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The court issued an order for her to make payments after she pled guilty to the traffic offense, finding that she had the ability to pay at the time. She validated the court's decision by making 5 payments. She then violated the court order by missing at least one payment. There is no question she violated the court order making her liable for jail time. She then came before the court pleading mitigating circumstances to avoid jail time for violating the court order, no question of guilt or innocence. As you have written multiple times she still owed the fine. But suddenly, the court, not the defendant is obligated to "investigate" is her claim of mitigation is valid.
To prove her guilt of being able to pay but refusing to, yes.
Anything less is assuming her guilty and demanding she prove innocence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
According to the fun house mirror interpretation of the SCOTUS enjoinder against sending people to jail when they cannot pay their fines, a standing court order ought to be suspended indefinitely while the court investigates the veracity of the defendant's claim of poverty. The court order not the defendant claim is presumed invalid, at least temporarily.
Your above is a dumb assessment. Hyperbolic, fantastical nonsense.

Not "suspended indefinitely", no more than murder laws or theft laws are "suspended" by requiring the government show proof before allowing a guilty verdict.
The court order is NOT "presumed invalid". She simply falls in the same situation as many other debtors who can't repay. The debt is still valid but just not paid.
In the vast majority of those cases, NOBODY GOES TO JAIL. Yet AZRWinger seems to think the previous guilt of traffic offense is somehow "suspended" just because she misses payment(s)?



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The court must prove it crazy system of justice that gives anyone pleading poverty a free pass from paying their fine, if the investigation concludes the defendant is able to pay all they need to do is offer another excuse to restart the investigation cycle.
Why?
I have not argued this and I see no justification for this strawman of yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Your honor, I was abducted by aliens ...
You really do yourself a disservice when you start throwing out stupid crap like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Speaking of bounced paychecks, how is the defendant going to pay her fine using them? You confidently state the defendant will pay her fine "eventually" how is she supposed to do that working a job that doesn't pay her?
ROFLMAO!
AZRWinger, you gotta pick a side and stick with it.
According to you, she has the capability to pay and refuses.
Ergo, for you to demand others prove how she will have the capability to pay is just stupid.

She requested the court for a lower amount for monthly payment, proving she has some capability. She paid for five months, as you stated.
This is an obviously temporary setback so don't demand idiotic proof that you don't even require.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Speaking of which, why is she continuing to work for an employer that doesn't pay her? Oh wait, no matter how implausible the court must investigate the claim.
How do you know she still works for them today?
You assume a lot in this whole situation.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 06-19-2017 at 05:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:30 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No.
The issue is: "ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Debtors’ Prison Practices in Lexington County, South Ca"

You want to make this about me so I decided to give you a dose of your own medicine. Asking you to demonstrate that you have supplied for anybody what you demand of me.



What's amusing is that you don't repudiate where I pointed out your claims were strawman or lies.
Instead, you just complain about it.

Here are the underlying pillars of your problem.
1) INNOCENCE until proven guilty.
** Note, this regards CAPABILITY TO PAY BUT REFUSING TO as that is what she will be thrown in jail for. And that is what is clearly required before she can be thrown into jail.
You keep trying to pretend that being proven guilty of the parking fine is sufficient, but that's nonsensical. It obliterates our "innocent until proven guilty requirement.
To require SHE proves she cannot pay changes our system into guilty until proven innocent, which should be anathema to our American justice system.

2) Based on both SCOTUS and passed legislation, the only way she can be thrown in jail is based on being able to pay and failing to.
The fact that she was seeking a lower payment shows willingness to pay, which obliterates this position.



To prove her guilt of being able to pay but refusing to, yes.
Anything less is assuming her guilty and demanding she prove innocence.



Your above is a dumb assessment. Hyperbolic, fantastical nonsense.

Not "suspended indefinitely", no more than murder laws or theft laws are "suspended" by requiring the government show proof before allowing a guilty verdict.
The court order is NOT "presumed invalid". She simply falls in the same situation as many other debtors who can't repay. The debt is still valid but just not paid.
In the vast majority of those cases, NOBODY GOES TO JAIL. Yet AZRWinger seems to think the previous guilt of traffic offense is somehow "suspended" just because she misses payment(s)?




Why?
I have not argued this and I see no justification for this strawman of yours.



You really do yourself a disservice when you start throwing out stupid crap like this.



ROFLMAO!
AZRWinger, you gotta pick a side and stick with it.
According to you, she has the capability to pay and refuses.
Ergo, for you to demand others prove how she will have the capability to pay is just stupid.

She requested the court for a lower amount for monthly payment, proving she has some capability. She paid for five months, as you stated.
This is an obviously temporary setback so don't demand idiotic proof that you don't even require.



How do you know she still works for them today?
You assume a lot in this whole situation.
Wiggle and deny, anything to avoid facing your own hypocrisy. You decided to give me a "dose of my own medicine" conveniently ignoring your own transgression. It is a childish tactic, when confronted by your own problem attack, attack, attack. Now you propose ignoring your problem altogether.

For the nth time, there is no presumption of innocence that was out the window when she pled guilty to the offense. There is no question she failed to comply with the court ordered payments schedule. What she is pleading is mitigation, she ought not be sent to jail because she cannot pay through no fault of her own.


Mitigation requires proof before the court can reasonably be expected to grant it. The defendant is required to provide proof or appeal to the mercy of the court. That is how mitigation works, there is nothing in the SCOTUS decision requiring the court to investigate every claim of poverty made by the defendant. The court as we both agreed already determined she had the ability to pay. Indeed, she demonstrated an ability to pay for 5 months afterward. Yet we she claimed poverty after failing to make payment the court should reflexively suspend payments while it "investigates" her claim like a permissive parent accepting the child's excuse for wrongdoing.

According to the rule you devised the court is obligated to investigate any defendants claim of poverty before imposing jail time. Yet now you allow I am being silly when I point out this allows a defendant to avoid jail by claiming alien abduction. If the court is allowed to assess credibility of the defendants claims without an investigation then it is not unreasonable for the court to dismiss a claim of bounced paychecks from a multibillion $ employer. Gee, following your rule forces the court to entertain absurdity, no wonder you want to ignore it.

The fact that the defendant wanted he payments set at $50 per month at her initial hearing doesn't say anything about willingness to pay or her failure to make payment in any amount as scheduled.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
aclu, caroli, county, debtors’, end, files, lawsuit, lexington, practices, prison, south

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0