Court orders Brawley's wages garnished to pay restitution
Source: Poughkeepsie Journal
Notoriously known as the girl who cried rape, Tawana Brawley could finally have to pay the man she accused of horrific acts about 25 years ago, court records show.
A nurse working under the name Tawana V. Thompson Gutierrez, she owes $431,492, including interest, as part of a defamation lawsuit won by the man she accused, according to a court order to garnish her wages obtained by the Journal.
Brawley works at Laurels of Bon Air nursing home in Richmond, Va., the court records show.
After Brawley left Dutchess County, she allegedly changed her name and Social Security number to avoid paying $189,926 in a defamation lawsuit won by Steven Pagones in 1998, his lawyer, Garry Bolnick said.
Read more: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130131/NEWS01/130131013/Court-orders-Brawley-s-wages-garnished-pay-restitution
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)...our friend Reverend Al should pay some of that off for her.
11cents
(1,777 posts)He was overheard saying at the time that he thought her story was bullshit. But it was good business for him. And he can well afford it; the woman that he used when she was a teenager obviously can't.
former9thward
(31,925 posts)Since he engineered it. And he does very well for himself currently and can easily afford it.
djg21
(1,803 posts)And I will not watch MSNBC so long as he works for that network. He is a disgrace, and does not peak for this a democrat.
Archae
(46,297 posts)11cents
(1,777 posts)He "defends" her to avoid doing the hard and right thing.
Nay
(12,051 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Furthermore, Sharpton's case went to trial and many of the accusation of libel were dismissed by the Jury (and on some of the counts the jury were deadlocked so no decision on those counts).
Brawley was sued but never made an appearance, thus a default judgment was entered (i.e. no trial).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)It does NOT matter who pays a Judgment, as long as the Judgment is paid. The only people who have any concern on HOW a judgment is paid is the IRS, for such payment may be (and probably is) income to the person who has the judgment against him or her (In this case Sharpton)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but the fact remains is that Al Sharpton did not pay for his lies. And that is unfortunate.
Damages were awarded in 1998 and payments began three years later.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nt
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)rev al did during that time in NY history. The poster is right in saying he has no credibility - between this and the whole Yankel Rosenbaum case, the good rev tore this city apart. Race relations were at an all time low and he continued to throw gasoline on the fire and he has never apologized for defending that liar. I'll never forgive him for that. He's nothing but a charlatan.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Lets review FEDERAL Withholding law,
1. The Attachment can NOT be more then 25% of Wages AND
2. The Defendant must be left with at least 30 times the weekly minimum wage per week i.e. $7.15x 30 or $214,50 per week.
Furthermore if she owes taxes or child support, those are superior claims over a debt like this one.
In 46 states of the Union prohibits any attachment of wages for this type of debt. North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas are the four states that do NOT permit attachment of wages for this type of debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment
Pennsylvania's ban goes back to at least the 1880s and the "Long Depression" (but was ignored by many employers as to employees debt to them, till the Great Depression of the 1930s).
In this case the real issue is reasonableness, but it does not look like the ex-prosecutor is willing to leave bygones be bygones so it looks like it will end up in Bankruptcy Court.
Now, if you are involved in a Criminal activity, and subsequently ordered to pay back for the damage you did, such an debt is NOT disagreeable in bankruptcy. If you are in an accident while drinking (DUI) any loss you cause is NOT disagreeable to bankruptcy.
On the other hand most other debts are (Student loans, taxes are not discharge in Bankruptcy but that is anther subject), including being liable and causing someone else financial loss. Since is living with one child, if she is earning less the $22,695 (150% of the poverty level for a family of two) she does not even has to pay the $299 filing fee for bankruptcy (One of the good parts of the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform act).
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)The one bad mark against Reverend Al -- he should have apologized for certain actions concerning this case.
nick of time
(651 posts)That's a bad mark also.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sleeping With the GOP
A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton's Campaign
Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.
Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides who've worked for him in prior campaigns. He's even boasted about engineering six-figure loans to Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN costs—neither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a wide-ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching-fund and staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies.
Sharpton denounced the Voice's inquiries as "phony liberal paternalism," insisting that he'd "talk to anyone I want" and likening his use of Stone to Bill Clinton's reliance on pollster Dick Morris, saying he was "sick of these racist double standards." He did not dispute that Stone had helped generate matching contributions and staff the campaign. Asked about the Stone loans, he conceded that he "asked him to help NAN," but attributed the financial aid to his and Stone's joint "fight against the Rockefeller drug laws," adding: "If he did let me use his credit card to cover NAN expenses, fine." The finances of NAN and the Sharpton campaign have so merged in recent months that they have shared everything from contractors to consultants to travel expenses, though Sharpton insists that these questionable maneuvers have been done in compliance with Federal Election Commission regulations.
snip--
Recruited in 2000 by his friend James Baker, the former secretary of state, to spearhead the GOP street forces in Miami, Stone is apparently confident that he can use the Democrat-bashing preacher to damage the party's eventual nominee, just as Sharpton himself bragged he did in the New York mayoral campaign of 2001. In his 2002 book, Al on America, Sharpton wrote that he felt the city's Democratic Party "had to be taught a lesson" in 2001—insisting that Mark Green, who defeated the Sharpton-backed Fernando Ferrer in a bitter runoff, had disrespected him and minorities. Adding that the party "still has to be taught one nationally," he warned: "A lot of 2004 will be about what happened in New York in 2001. It's about dignity." In 2001, Sharpton engaged in a behind-the-scenes dialogue with campaign aides to Republican Mike Bloomberg while publicly disparaging Green.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-01-27/news/sleeping-with-the-gop/
Tutonic
(2,522 posts)I am saddened that DU has sunk to the level of the rabid posters that it hosts.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)during that time, you would feel differently. Go back and see what he was saying about whites and Jews. He's as racist as any klansman.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)to said posters what your objections are because, just reading this post, I've no idea. 
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)What Ms. Brawley did was wrong, too, but she was only 14 when all of this happened. She lied because she was afraid that her stepfather would beat her badly because she had been out all night with her boyfriend.
The prosecutor that she accused was wronged, but expecting that Ms. Brawley pay that money for something she did at 14 shows him in a very, very bad light.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The defamation judgment was entered in 1998. She was still trying to defend the hoax in 1997, ten years after it happened, and when she was 25 years old. She was still, a decade after the whole thing went down, publicly referring to him as a rapist. It would be one thing if we were only talking about the statements she made in 1987, but she kept repeating the accusations long after she was old enough to know better in some desperate attempt to save face. When she was finally sued and was given a chance to defend herself, she didn't even bother showing up to court. She skipped town and changed her name.
Pagones is the victim here. He did nothing wrong, had his life disrupted for years, his marriage destroyed, and his name and photo smeared across the national media by her pointless hoax. She already got off pretty easy by not being charged with faking the crime...paying some cash to her victim as compensation isn't too much to ask.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I lived in the New York area in the '80s and remember quite a bit about that disaster, as well as Rev. Sharpton's involvement in Crown Heights.
However, I left New York in late 1991, and did not follow the story after that. I had no idea that she kept on with the accusations.
Having read your post, I agree with you.
Progressive dog
(6,898 posts)He and the other two stooges (Mason and Maddox) came to Dutchess county to support a story that was obviously at least highly exaggerated. They encouraged a 14 year old child to inflate her accusations to encompass more people and to recklessly continue them.
She can never pay this money but Al and his friends could pay it on her behalf. Then they could all admit they were wrong and apologize to the accused.
That would be the right thing to do.