In jail for being in debt

[Lucian]

http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

You committed no crime, but an officer is knocking on your door. More Minnesotans are surprised to find themselves being locked up over debts.

By CHRIS SERRES and GLENN HOWATT , Star Tribune staff writers
Last update: June 9, 2010 - 7:58 AM

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."

<snip>

This is insane. Seems like they're bringing back debtor's prison. How can they do this? Especially over a $250 credit card debt. They'd rather waste taxpayer money to put people in jail. Ugh. I'm willing to bet you'll never find CEOs of failed banks going to jail over their debt...:grr:

[Statistical]

1. It wasn't over the debt.

It was over missing a court summons.

When ordered to court and you don't show up you risk going to jail.

Nobody has gone to jail over being in debt. Hell a lot of Americans have 20x that in credit card debt.

[Lucian]

3. Yeah, but missing a court summons should make you risk going to jail.

It should mean the court rules in the plaintiff's favor and you get default judgement against you, thus they can garnish your wages to collect owed debt.

Or maybe I'm wrong IDK.

[Xithras]

11. They violated a subpoena.

If someone sues you, there is no obligation for you to show up in court. You can skip the trial and they will get a default judgment.

If you are later subpoenaed to court to turn over financial records and bank records, you don't have that option. A subpoena is a court order compelling your appearance. Skipping is not optional. Many people don't seem to understand the difference. A subpeona is an order by the court itself for your appearance, and ignoring it is legal contempt.

These people weren't arrested for an unpaid debt, or even for skipping court during the civil suit. They were arrested because they were subpoenaed by the court so they would turn over financial records, and they didn't show up. Ignored subpoenas ALWAYS result in arrest warrants.

As someone else here said: When someone shows up on your doorstep with a summons, READ IT. If you don't understand it, find an attorney or your local legal aid and have them explain it to you. I can't think of a SINGLE situation where ignoring a letter from your local court would be a good idea. If they're contacting you, it's serious.

[Statistical]

12. "A subpeona is an order by the court itself for your appearance, and ignoring it is legal contempt."

That is the key point.

Ignoring a subpoena isn't materially different than going into court telling the judge he can fuck himself and storming out.

Now most people would never consider the latter but consider the former to be "legal mumbo jumbo" then wonder how they end up in a jail cell.

It doesn't matter if you think the subpoena is silly, stupid, or downright abusive. If you are subpoenaed for anything, ever, under any conditions, ignore it at your own peril.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. The best response: Contest the subpoena, then make it a "Federal case"

Contest the summons. Contest the debt. Then, go after the creditor and the judge who issued the subpoena on the grounds of violating (your) Civil Rights.

Creditors and their pet judges know that people are loath to do that after years of whining about how ne'er-do-wells have "abused" the court system by standing up for their Civil Rights. They also know that most people in debt have a tremendous burden of moral guilt. This all works in favor of the process that locks people up for debts.

There have also been a number of cases where people have been tried and imprisoned over debts, using various legal loopholes. IIRC, the most popular one is to claim contempt of court when a debtor becomes unable to service a court-ordered debt. I haven't heard of it happening in a few years, so that loophole might have been closed -- by some damn Libbrul trial lawyer, no doubt.

--d!

[yodoobo]

28. these people were not "served"

They were sent a postcard in the mail from an unfamiliar creditor that looked like 90% of most junk mail.


Having a server or cop show up with a court order is one thing.

A postcard in the mail is something different.

A no, it doesn't always end in arrest warrants for civil suits. This practice is only present in about 4 creditor friendly states.

[Xithras]

30. A "postcard" from the local court. Courts aren't well known for their junk mail habits.

Virtually every state permits creditors with valid court judgments to file garnishment requests. Nearly all of them permit creditors, as part of those filings, to subpoena information from the debtor to allow them to do that (your bank records, your retirement account information, your employer information, etc). In every state, ignoring a subpoena is a crime. Attendance at disclosure hearings is NOT optional. In any state.

The only thing "unique" to those four states is the ability of debtors to request a court ordered repayment plan, with mandatory arrest ("contempt") for missing a payment. Only one of the people in that article fell under that statute, and he was only mentioned in passing. The rest simply didn't show up for their interrogatories. They violated a court ordered summons.

Here in California, creditors have a LOT of collection powers. A few years ago a friend of mine, who owns a small Mexican taqueria, was sued for an old debt that had been purchased by a creditor. After about a year, the creditor stopped calling. Then one day, out of the blue, a sheriff's deputy walks into his restaurant and ordered everyone out of the office. He emptied the cash registers, ordered them to open the safe, and took cash in there too. There was even a tip bucket for the waitresses behind the counter (they pooled and split them at the end of the shift), and the deputy emptied it as he went through the store. A week later he came back and did it again. Two weeks after that, he did it a third time. They took so much money that he had to borrow to make payroll that month.

It's called a Till Tap, and it's just one of many perfectly legal collection practices available to creditors in the great Golden State.

[liberalhistorian]

36. Just a quick note-

In most states, your pension, social security and retirement accounts are NOT subject to collection unless it's for federal/state taxes, child support or student loans. So, in those states, you may have to give the information but such accounts are not subject to attachment or seizure. Now, if your only income is that pension and/or social security, you still have to prove that all the money in your bank accounts comes from those funds, otherwise, your bank accounts are subject to attachment.

[yodoobo]

37. yes but were not talking about garnishments

and I'm not arguing against them. (although there are a number of states where they are very restricted)

I'm sorry, a post card is not proper service when the stakes are being arrested if you didn't notice it. A simple post card is easily missed, or lost by USPS.

46 states have done this right. These 4 are failing their people.

[liberalhistorian]

34. How many of the Wall Street crooks and CEO's

who robbed us of hundreds of millions of dollars and who've refused such subpoenas are in jail? Hmmmmmm........?

Yes, that is true that this was a subpoena that she should have responded to, as opposed to just missing a court date where you can get a default judgment against you and nothing else will happen, and that you NEVER ignore such subpoenas. Technically, it was legal to jail her. But morally and ethically, it's bullshit. One standard for the "little people" and quite another for the PTB.

[sabrina 1]

45. Excuse me but I have to disagree with you here

Ignored subpoenas ALWAYS result in arrest warrants.

A few people who ignored subpoenas and were never arrested:

1} Todd Palin
2) Karl Rove

Neither went to jail and I could find lots of others if I had the time. These people went to jail because Corporate America wanted them to. Congress could have dragged Karl Rove into jail if they had wanted to, but he is a good servant of the corporate state, so it didn't happen.

We are an Empire, and in empires, the ruling class live by different rules. It's a hard thing to have to acknowledge after believing for so long that 'no one is above the law'.

[liberalhistorian]

31. Bullshit that no one's gone to jail over a debt.

Hospitals have been known to use the rarely-used technique of "body attachment" for unpaid medical debts, no matter how small, especially against uninsured individuals, many of whom found themselves in the hospital for true emergencies that required immediate treatments (appendicitis, strokes, miscarriages, etc.). The Wall Street Journal, of all papers, had an expose series on this several years ago; hospitals are now among the top five industries when it comes to aggressive collections and it makes no difference whether or not they are "non-profit."

Edited because at first I thought it was just a court date and not an actual subpoena from the court that she'd ignored. In that case, yes, technically it's legal to jail her. But it's still bullshit given the circumstances.

[Statistical]

35. Agressive collections isn't same thing as going to jail for debt. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

38. But in such aggressive collections, they

used the rarely-known technique of "body attachment" to put medical debtors in jail. Granted, for a short time, but they could still do it.

[Hosnon]

2. She missed a court-ordered appearance. Here's a big tip: if anyone in uniform comes to your

door and gives you a piece of paper, READ IT. It's probably extremely important.

[Lucian]

5. I got a summons to go to court last summer for like $250 credit card...

debt, and I didn't go to the court date. A lawyer told me I didn't have to. He said I'd just get a default judgement against me.

If I would've gotten arrested over that, I would've asked that lawyer to pay up.

[Hosnon]

17. I don't think this was a summons. It was an order to appear before the court.

Perhaps a subpoena.

[yodoobo]

40. that is the case in most all states.

There are a handful where the stakes are higher.

[sandnsea]

49. Some states are going futher than that now

The judges are saying not paying is being in contempt of the default judgment. It's sick.

[KonaKane]

4. I am no fan of debtors prisons, but your OP is misleading.

She wasn't arrested for having a debt. She was arrested for shining a court appearance. The judge obviously put out a bench warrant for that. They do it every day. My wife just got arrested because she missed a court appearance over a disputed ticket she got for no insurance card in her car.

Debtors prisons are serious business and an affront to a democratic society. Please don't trivialize them with mischaracterized incidents. I ask that you change your topic title appropriately.

[Lucian]

6. That's the title of the article.

I'm not the one who's misleading. Star Tribune is.

[KonaKane]

8. Then they are just as wrong as you are.

I would hope you see the difference between being arrested for a debt and being arrested for failing to appear.

[yodoobo]

10. most states take a better approach

If you miss the court appearance the creditor wins automatically.

The taxpayers do not need to be thug enforcers for the credit card industry.

[closeupready]

7. If I lived in Illinois or Indiana,

after reading this passage, I would likely consider Chapter 7 if I were in financial distress:

>>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.<<

[Critters2]

15. In Illinois, at least one "non-profit" hospital lost its state non-profit status

for doing this. This process is called "issuing a body attachment", and two hospitals in Champaign-Urbana, Carle Foundation Hospital and Provena Covenant Hospital both had their non-profit status challenged for having people arrested for taking people to court for medical debts, and using body attachments. One of the hospitals did lose its status (can't recall which one), the other made all kinds of promises to offer more charity care, change its billing practices, etc.

[closeupready]

20. I'm familiar with the first, and not surprised based upon what I recall

from my days in C/U many years ago.

[yodoobo]

9. wow. I'm staying the hell away from Minnesota.

I had no idea this barbaric practice existed anywhere in the united states.

[SoCalDem]

13. KEYWORDS..."missing a court hearing".... not "debt"

When you are summoned to court, you GO..or you end up in jail..

easy-peasy

[yodoobo]

25. Not really

In the vast majority of states, well over 40, if you miss a civil suit summons the creditor wins by default.

That's the normal way to handle it.

While technically they are being arrested for missing a summons. But when you combine it with bail being set at the amount owed, the creditor collecting the bail money, the highly unusual nature...Its clear that the practical and barbaric reality is that state has been drafted into being the muscle-enforcer for the credit card industry.

[SoCalDem]

61. "vast majority" did not apply to this one person.. she had to deal with the rules/laws in her own st

and apparently she did not..

Some states have higher speed limit laws, but you must drive by the laws where you happen to be..not somewhere else

[yodoobo]

63. and that is part of why this is unjust.

[dflprincess]

43. Read the article - this has happened in other states where it has nothing to do with a court date

In Minnesota enforcement is spotty as some counties feel they do not have the staff to deal with collecting private debts (and that's what everyone in the court system & sheriff's offices know it is).

The summons in these cases is often mailed and it usually comes from a third party debt collector who has bought the note from the original lender. The notices from the 3rd party rarely mentioned where the debt originated and many people assume it's a mistake as they don't know they now owe money to this new company. There have been cases where the debt has been satisfied or the summons was sent to the wrong person.

If you read the article, you'll also find that bail is often set at the exact amount of the unpaid debt and the county is turning that money over to the debt collector. Also, per the article, time & tax money will be spent to haul the debtor to the sheriff's office but, if they fill out a financial disclosure form that allows the lender to attach their bank account or pay check they will spend no time in jail & will not have to appear in court to explain why they ignored the summons - so it would appear that missing the court date is secondary to collecting the debt.

This is just another example of the government (your tax dollars) working as an arm of private business. You can try and defend it if you want - but Minnesota is currently cutting medical services to the poorest in the state. If any law enforcement agencies have money to spend on private debt collections, maybe their budgets should be cut and the money used for programs that benefit the public.

[SoCalDem]

60. not "defending" it... just pointing out that in this specific case

(micro) that it was the missing the court date that landed this person in jail.

In the macro sense, this is usury at its worst, but when people use plastic, they are subject to whatever "rules" happen to be in all that fine print.

It's not nice, not fun and often not "fair", but it's obviously legal.:(

I am not surprised at much these days :(

[dflprincess]

67. If the issue were truly that they did not answer the summons

the issue of failing to appear would not be dropped the minute the debtor filled out a financial disclosure form for the creditor at the sheriff's office. And if it were serious all counties would be treating it as such and many not ignoring it for lack of resources to play debt collector.

Failure to appear should be a whole different issue from a debt that is unpaid.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

69. The usual pro-bank defenders are chiming in on this issue.

The bottom line is aggressive "debt-buyers" are pressing all their "rights" in the courts to compel debtors to court with the knowledge most debtors will disregard the subpoenas or not SEE the subpoenas. They do this knowing they can count on a sympathetic judge to help press the issue once the debtor is under lock and key. Once under lock and key, surprise surprise the bail equals the debt and the court will look the other way if paid.

I've been in the consumer lending arena for 15 years and I've never seen a lender go THIS far. Judgments and wage garnishments - yes. Liens on properties - yes. Court orders sent to employers for discovery of wages for garnishments - yes. But compelling debtors back to court after judgment and then pressing the issue when the debtor blows off the court date is a new one on me. There's no way the collection attorneys would even press the latter issue if they didn't know they had a sympathetic court to hold the debtor pending payment of the debt.

It's bullshit and a mis-use of our court system. And the usual suspects are defending it.

[Pithlet]

70. Exactly. It's slimy and underhanded. Those who think they're pulling a gotcha

by pointing out the article is technically wrong because she missed her court date are completely missing the point. Ending up in jail shouldn't be the end result of failure to pay the bills, no matter what sneaky and underhanded means are used, and if any of our courts and police are complacent, they are wrong. It effectively becomes a debtor's prison when these shady debt collectors are allowed to play the system like this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

71. I'm assuming these debt buyers COUNT on the debtors missing the court date.

Until now, the only other sure-fire way to squeeze money out of a debtor was through wage garnishment and property liens (IF the debtor owns property). Both, especially liens, take time to recoup the debt. Furthermore, it's not hard to discover, post judgment, the debtors employer or any property owned. One didn't need the debtors "help" to discover these. And bank accounts are hard to seize (unless you are the IRS).

No. The aggressive collectors aren't after the above when it comes to arrest warrants sworn out over missed court dates. Warrants, by the way, pressed at the request of the collector. The goal is to get the debtor under lock and key on a technicality the collector aggressively pressed with the help of a sympathetic court.

Why else would you press for a warrant over $250 bucks?

It's an abuse of public resources and wrong on so many levels.

[Spike from MN]

74. It sure seems that way.

Reading through the comments on the article, I came across this. First, they quoted this snippet from the article:

"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."

And here's the comment (emphasis in bold is mine):

"Rosso and his firm Como or whatever name he changes it to so that he eludes his unsavory and fraudulent activities seems to be so noble, but he is a deadbeat citizen in that he is unethical. His firm will not accept documents proving that a debt is not legitimate. It does not matter what you send them. They then do not inform you of the court appearance and lie to the court saying that they informed you. The court does not contact the debtor, but relies on the "faith" of a law firm that "vouches" as an officer of the court. They also will cheat their collectors by taking more from people than even the judgments allow and then not even telling the original creditor that they collected the money. They have a history of complaints at the state level. If firms operate like them, then no wonder the system is a mess. They need to be reined in, and they need to be held to the highest ethical standards."

Now, since it's just a comment that someone submitted, I can't say whether or not it's true but I wouldn't doubt it. The quickest way to get the debt settled would be to have a warrant issued. If they inform the debtor of an upcoming court appearance and the debtor shows up and pleads his/her hardship case to the judge, chances are that the judge would grant them some leeway since they showed up in good faith and are thus at least making some kind of effort to take care of the matter. They might not have a dime to their name and won't be able to even set up a payment schedule because they have no income but at least by showing up, they demonstrate they aren't skipping out and are doing what they can, even if their circumstances don't allow them to pay back anything at the moment.

OTOH, if they don't know they are scheduled for a court appearance, they obviously can't show up for it, a warrant gets issued, they get hauled in, post bail and the debt collector gets the bail money. This works out great for the debt collector because they get a quick settlement with very little effort or cost on their part, the cops become their "enforcement arm" and the taxpayers foot the bill for arresting and jailing the debtors (that was in the article). IOW, it's definitely in the debt collector's interest to not have the person show up in court and what better way to do that than by not letting them know about it?

[Spike from MN]

75. Exactly.

The debt collectors are gaming the system by taking something that isn't a crime and tying it to something that is so they can grab the bail money and get a quick settlement. The fact that bail is set at the amount owed (or $2500, whichever is less) is a dead giveaway.

If a person is being charged with failure to appear, then that's the issue that should be dealt with and it should be dealt with separately from the issue of the unpaid debt. If a person is arrested for, say, drunk and disorderly conduct (and I'm thinking of you here, princess ;)) and that person also happens to have debts that have been sent to a collection agency, does that mean their bail will be set at the amount of the debt and that the collections agency will be able to grab that bail money? No, because the two are separate issues. It should be the same for the failure to appear charge and the issue of the unpaid debt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Shame on the person who wrote this.

[izzybeans]

16. As long as you go to the court appearance you will not be jailed.

Claim inability to pay every time you are summoned.

I just took our former renters to small claims court and saw this first hand. Some of the cases included people who ignored the summons, who were put in jail until they raised a minimum amount. This was horrifying. Most of them were unable to do so. However, the cases where people showed up and claimed they could not pay were handled very well and in the favor of the debtor. The people that were jailed were jailed not for being in debt but from running from their debts. I saw a few cases served bench warrants and body attachments on people who had received the summons in person and failed to show up to court and I saw other cases where the summons was reissued for people whom it could not be confirmed whether they actually received it or not. the court reissues the summons until the person is found or the plaintiff moves on. From the perspective of a plaintiff, the courts do about as much as they can do to keep the defendant out of jail. I had a legal right to recoup the lost rents from my former renters and it took me getting them in a courtroom before they willfully even attempted to comply with the payment plan I set up for them.

Lesson: If you owe money and are taken to court, show up, be honest, pay what you can, and if you can not, bring the proof and your case will be kicked down the road until you resolve the debt or the plaintiff forgets about it and moves on.

Shit I was a landlord by default because I had to move in order to find work. I picked the best candidates for my home from the info. I had at hand. I had no idea that after 2 years they would decide to trash my house and stop paying rent. They nearly bankrupted me. So I took them to court.

[bobbolink]

18. When jails are privatized, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I hope these people don't just treat this as a personal problem, but see the wider implications of this society.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I'm having a bad google-fu day

I thought imprisoning people for indigence (sp?) was unconstitutional?

[closeupready]

23. I see this as akin to a poll tax - it disproportionately penalizes the poor

whether or not that is the intent.

[fishbulb703]

59. the term for those types of taxes is "regressive" nt

[dflprincess]

52. It is

both at the Federal level and in most state constitutions, including Minnesota's. They think they're fooling people by claiming it was the failure to answer a summons - but resolving the situation always comes down to the debt, not explain why the court date was missed.

[qb]

21. Misleading headline. The Strib has become the FAUX NEWS of Minneapolis.

It's a shame - it used to be a good paper.

[backscatter712]

22. What's interesting is how the process is abused. (In other words, yes, I read the article.)

Yes, I know they're technically arrested for not showing up at a court hearing.

But many of these people weren't even informed properly of the hearing before it happened. I was under the impression that a process server was supposed to knock on your door and verify that the summons was in your hand, but that doesn't seem to happen in Minnesota - all you get is a piece of mail which looks like all the other junk mail and collection mail you get when you're having problems paying your bills.

Also to note is that when you're arrested, your bail is set to the amount of the debt, and the instant you or your friends or family members pay bail to get out of jail, the creditor makes a motion to take the bail money. The bail goes bye-bye, even if it's not your money.

So for all intents and purposes, debtors prisons are making a comeback.

[yodoobo]

27. yea I think alot of people didn't read the article

This seems to pass muster under a very thin veneer of "missing a court appearance"

But most of these folks were never properly notified, certainly never served. And then with the bail money being the exact amount of the debt and handed over the creditor. It IS debtor prison.

I'm sorry. The police shouldn't be the muscle for the credit card industry.

[sandnsea]

50. Yeah, I read the article too and agree with you

And here we go again. The exact same people who pissed all over the people who took out liar loans and defended the mortgage companies - are turning right around and pissing all over people who ARE going to jail for debt.

I honest to god don't know why they can't learn a lesson about the system abusing the victims, once and for all.

[aikoaiko]

26. RIF

eta: in fairness it your subject is the headline of the article, but I wouldn't not have repeated the misinformation my subject line if I had posted the story.

[Leftist Agitator]

64. If reading is fundamental, why did the RIF program have such shitty books?

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

29. 'Failure to appear'. She was ordered to court and didn't show, that's why she went to

jail, not for having an unpaid debt. People need to wise up and learn there are responsibilities in life.

[Occulus]

32. No, YOU need to wise up. It's a HELL of a lot more complex than that.

I read the whole article, so I know this.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. I read every word of the article. If you're ordered to appear before a judge for any reason, you'd b

really stupid not to show.

[sandnsea]

58. And judges who issue show cause orders over $250

Are judges who should be out on their ass. And that would be because they are creating a debtors prison.

When issues like this come up I do not wonder why this country is so biased towards business and corporations. The brainwashing is just that good.

[yodoobo]

39. you really think a postcard is proper notice?

When the penalty for missing it, or having the post office lose it is a night in jail?

You really think its appropriate to make the bail exactly the amount as the amount owed? And then hand that amount over to the creditor when paid (and the only way to get out of jail?)

You really think its ok for the police to be the credit card industry muscle enforcers?

This only an issue in 4 states. Most states do not have this problem.

I highly suggest reading the article.

[sinkingfeeling]

41. I did both read the article and live in Minnesota. The lady in the article said she did receive

notice. I think people should first of all pay their debts and secondly, when they receive mail and wonder what it's about, check it out.

I work at an university and hear these students talking about debts and 'blowing off' their credit card bills. I see no difference in somebody running up a credit card and not paying than if they walked into the store and just took the merchandise off the shelves.

If this process bothers you so much, then work to get it changed. Is it appropriate to steal?

P.S. Could you please point out the exact sentence in the article that talks about a 'post card'? I can't locate that.

[yodoobo]

42. well ok then.

Must be nice to be wealthy enough to know that financial issues will never affect you.

[dflprincess]

44. Your profile says you live in Arkansas.

Though I'll be that will change pretty quickly.

[sinkingfeeling]

46. Meant to type 'lived in Minnesota'.

[Leftist Agitator]

65. Oy Gevalt!

"I see no difference in somebody running up a credit card and not paying than if they walked into the store and just took the merchandise off the shelves."

You don't see the difference? Really?

Because I see a vast difference between willfully stealing property that belongs to somebody and using a line of credit to make purchases. If the bank if stupid enough to lend to college kids with no jobs and no assets, then they deserve to eat the losses that they experience as a result of their reckless lending practices.

"Is it appropriate to steal?"

No. Is it appropriate (or prudent) to lend money to someone without knowing whether or not they have the ability to repay you?

"I think people should first of all pay their debts..."

Most people are willing to pay their debts. But life often gets in the way. You could lose your job, get in a car accident, become gravely ill, etc. And then, despite your best intentions, you might find that when you have to choose between paying rent or your credit card bills, the latter take a back seat.

"...and secondly, when they receive mail and wonder what it's about, check it out."

I don't have time to meticulously scrutinize every piece of junk mail that arrives just to make sure that it's not something important. If I did that, I would spend hours a day reading about "This exciting new offer!" and finding out how "Drivers like you are paying too much for car insurance!" and so on, ad nauseum.

Well, I'd like to see what you have to say in response before I pontificate any further.

[Occulus]

72. "then they deserve to eat the losses that they experience as a result of their

reckless lending practices"

+ fifty billion. There is one and ONLY one entity to blame here, and it's NOT the frakking customer.

[whopis01]

76. There is a huge difference between stealing property and failing to honor a contract.

The credit card company willingly gave the money - with an agreement that it would be repaid. No one took money from the company without the company's permission. The debtors may not be holding up their end of the contract, but that is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

If you were to take merchandise off of a shelf and walk out of a store, you have not entered into any agreement with the merchant. You had no right to take the item and have committed a criminal action.

How about someone who bought a house using a mortgage and are now upside down and unable to make payments? If they quit paying, are they committing a crime? How about if the mortgage company forecloses but isn't able to recover all of their loan? Has the debtor committed a crime in that case? Did they steal money from the mortgage holder?

[sandnsea]

51. No one has had to go to court over CIVIL cases

You owe the debt and don't want to contest it, you just don't go to court. That's how it's been for decades. They can't just start applying the law differently and lock people up left and right.

I bet you blame the homeowners for being upside down in their homes too, don't you.

[NNN0LHI]

47. Great,after they go to jail maybe they can get a job working for Honda?

http://www.alternet.org/story/8852/hightower:_prison_labor/

Hightower: Prison Labor

Hightower looks at the growing prison labor workforce.

April 26, 2000 |

Psssst. Hey you... Big Shot. Yeah you, you corporate honchos. Want a source of really cheap labor? No worker's-comp to worry about, no health benefits to pay, no uppity attitude from workers? Have I got a deal for you. Let me whisper one word to you: "Prisons." You heard me right. More and more companies are kissing-off their regular employees and going inside the Big House to tap into America's growing pool of Prison Labor. Reese Erlich, a documentary producer for the TV program "We Do the Work" reports that an Ohio subcontractor for Honda paid $2.05-an-hour to get state convicts to assemble parts for the Japanese car maker. The prisoners get to keep 35-cents of this hourly pay -- the rest goes to the state. So Honda profits, the state prison profits ... but the use of convict labor takes more jobs from us law-abiding Americans, it artificially depresses everyone's wage level, and it competes unfairly against small businesses. Honda's not alone in profiteering on prisoners.

[Gin]

48. didn't some in the bush administration ignore subpoenas?

maybe it's just the "little guy" who has to play by the rules

[Amerigo Vespucci]

53. "...missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt..."

There is a

major

difference between going to jail over "missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt" and "In jail for being in debt."

Joy Uhlmeyer...the woman in your excerpt...went to jail over missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt.

We don't have the option of missing court hearings.

Debt and debt collection practices are a separate issue, at least as far as this woman...and this example...are concerned.

[sandnsea]

55. Never has been in the past

If you don't contest the CIVIL claim made against you, you don't go. They enter a default judgment and that's that.

They have never held people in contempt for unpaid debt. Read the article.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

56. I read the article, and I gave a copy to my attorney, who said...

..."she was arrested for missing her court date."

Since it's clear that you are also an attorney, I'll defer to your wisdom, despite the glaring condescension in the "read the article" remark.

Life isn't always about making the other person your *****, you know. Bye bye.

[sandnsea]

57. Get a new attorney

Any attorney who accepts the shit in that article isn't worth retaining.

The Supreme Court will decide that holding someone in contempt over an unpaid debt is the same thing as debtor's prison and we don't do debtor's prison in this country.

[yodoobo]

62. wow you already printed a copy and had your attorney review it?

that was amazingly fast and incredibly believable.

[Leftist Agitator]

66. What is your attorney's name?

I would like to contact her regarding an unrelated matter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I Am Glad Predatory Capitalism Is In Its Death Throes

~

[Lorien]

68. Seems like it's alive and gaining strength and speed to me. nt

[glitch]

73. Oh it's dying alright, it's just going to take everyone and everything with it. nt

[amborin]

77. return of debtor's prison