Discussion:
CBS: Patients jailed over medical debt
Add Reply
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-02-10 20:45:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
BTR1701
2020-02-10 22:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-k
ansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Another misleading headline. The people are going to jail for contempt
of court because they fail to appear for the hearing. If they show up
and show they can't afford to pay, they walk right back out again, no
jail.

That said, this whole 'debtors exam' nonsense should be ended. I can see
having one hearing to ensure someone really is struggling financially
and not just gaming the system, but to have to repeat the process every
three months is idiotic.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-10 23:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Another misleading headline. The people are going to jail for contempt
of court because they fail to appear for the hearing. If they show up
and show they can't afford to pay, they walk right back out again, no
jail.
That said, this whole 'debtors exam' nonsense should be ended. I can see
having one hearing to ensure someone really is struggling financially
and not just gaming the system, but to have to repeat the process every
three months is idiotic.
The hospital should be willing to write down the debt and come up with
reasonable payment terms for the rest of it at the very first hearing.
Those two men that John Oliver profiled who buy medical debt, then
discharge out, were always pointing out how unreasonable the situation
is, given that the creditor writes down the debt at the point he sells
it.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-02-11 21:34:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-k
ansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Another misleading headline. The people are going to jail for contempt
of court because they fail to appear for the hearing. If they show up
and show they can't afford to pay, they walk right back out again, no
jail.
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.

How exactly does a poor "show" they can't afford to pay a
bill? If they're unemployed, they don't have paystubs
or a W-2.
Post by BTR1701
That said, this whole 'debtors exam' nonsense should be ended. I can see
having one hearing to ensure someone really is struggling financially
and not just gaming the system, but to have to repeat the process every
three months is idiotic.
Agreed.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-12 17:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Another misleading headline. The people are going to jail for contempt
of court because they fail to appear for the hearing. If they show up
and show they can't afford to pay, they walk right back out again, no
jail.
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?

If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
How exactly does a poor "show" they can't afford to pay a
bill? If they're unemployed, they don't have paystubs
or a W-2.
I think they swear out an affidavit what their income is and what their
debts are and what their cost of living is.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by BTR1701
That said, this whole 'debtors exam' nonsense should be ended. I can see
having one hearing to ensure someone really is struggling financially
and not just gaming the system, but to have to repeat the process every
three months is idiotic.
Agreed.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-02-12 19:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense. There's a myth that receiving public
aid or disability is an easy street, but that's bullshit.
It's rough. A poor person's life is often between, as
they say, a rock and a hard place.

Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.

They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up.


Unfortunately, both political streams screw the poor.
Republicans want to deny benefits altogether to save
money, or at best impose very onerous requirements
to qualify. Republicans think all poor people are
con artists milking the system. Liberals are clueless to
the real environment of poor people, good and bad, and what
their real needs are. Liberals often create
ridiculous bureaucracies.


[snip]
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-12 19:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense.
Yes hancock, but the civil rights we have at trial don't say that we get
to appear in court at times that are convenient. You're ignoring that
they cannot miss a court appearance, period, because if they are then
jailed for missing the court appearance, then that's far more
inconvenient than having appeared in the first place.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
There's a myth that receiving public aid or disability . . .
Are irrelevancies always necessary? We're all pretty much in agreement
here, but you're just refusing to acknowledge the obvious point that, no
matter how inconvenient, court appearance is mandatory.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Yes, hancock. Sometimes it's necessary to have a lawyer.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
There's a federal program that contributes to legal aid for the poor,
and there are unaffiliated lawyers and university legal clinics that may
be willing to help. It's difficult but not impossible.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
It's better than no lawyer when one needs a lawyer.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up. . . .
Well, that will definitely get the lawyer disbarred.

hancock, even if the justice system were perfectly fair, which it is
not, there will always be a need for lawyers.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-02-12 19:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense.
Yes hancock, but the civil rights we have at trial don't say that we get
to appear in court at times that are convenient. You're ignoring that
they cannot miss a court appearance, period, because if they are then
jailed for missing the court appearance, then that's far more
inconvenient than having appeared in the first place.
The very fact of requiring someone to show up at trial or
hearing is onerous in itself. It's especially bad for
someone whose skills are limited or missing a day of work
is onerous. I know someone who worked for a big company
that got subpoenaed for court and got fired as a result.
Maybe that shouldn't be, but it happened and he was S-O-L.
So is the reality of the system today.

Some jurisdictions hold such hearings fairly locally so
travel isn't an issue. But others hold them in the county
seat and that's not necessarily close to home nor easy to
get to.

In this particular area, medical costs, there are deeper
issue of why the costs are so outrageous and the
lack of medical coverage for the poor. Today's
Medicaid for the people is extremely limited, and they're
working very hard to cut it back. The Republicans have
done a number on the Affordable Care Act as well.

Even middle class people are hammered. People who
thought they did their homework about their insurance
company wake up and discover huge bills for "out of
network" service or unknown deductibles and out of
pocket costs.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
There's a myth that receiving public aid or disability . . .
Are irrelevancies always necessary? We're all pretty much in agreement
here, but you're just refusing to acknowledge the obvious point that, no
matter how inconvenient, court appearance is mandatory.
It is not irrelevant. Republicans have made it an article of
faith that the poor are not deserving of any help and are
nothing but con artists. This attitude impacts public policy.
Some conservative states have created so many roadblocks for
aid that people are starving.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Yes, hancock. Sometimes it's necessary to have a lawyer.
There are numerous types of low-level hearings that supposedly
do not require a lawyer. Ha Ha. Go in without one and
you're screwed.

Guess what. Laywers are expensive.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
There's a federal program that contributes to legal aid for the poor,
and there are unaffiliated lawyers and university legal clinics that may
be willing to help. It's difficult but not impossible.
Once again, there's what exists on paper and what exists in
reality. On paper there is Legal Aid. In reality it is
often not available.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
It's better than no lawyer when one needs a lawyer.
Not really. An untrained person, no matter how well
intentioned, is of little help in an unfamiliar setting,
especially against experienced people.

The demand for such services far outstrips the supply
of qualified assistants.

Why Legal Aid can't have specialists in common issues like
Unemployment, Workers Comp, or Landlord Tenant, I don't
know. They needn't be real lawyers, just trained enough
in the procedure for those hearings and know what
specific questions and challenges.

Maybe Legal Aid in your town is well financed and well
staffed. It sure ain't elsewhere.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up. . . .
Well, that will definitely get the lawyer disbarred.
Ha ha ha. Do you know the reality of public defenders
for criminals? Even though that's constitutionally
guaranteed, that's crap, too.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
hancock, even if the justice system were perfectly fair, which it is
not, there will always be a need for lawyers.
Do you have any idea what a competent lawyer--if you could find
one--charges? Even a simple matter runs into thousands of dollars.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-12 20:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense.
Yes hancock, but the civil rights we have at trial don't say that we get
to appear in court at times that are convenient. You're ignoring that
they cannot miss a court appearance, period, because if they are then
jailed for missing the court appearance, then that's far more
inconvenient than having appeared in the first place.
The very fact of requiring someone to show up at trial or
hearing is onerous in itself.
Repeating myself for the brain damaged:

Showing up for a mandatory appearance is not subject to convenience. In
a civil suit, the party claiming that the opposing party damaged him has
an expectation that he get get the opposing party into court in order to
obtain damages. That expectation is perfectly reasonable.

You're out of line here, hancock.

[repetitious nonsensical position snipped]
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Yes, hancock. Sometimes it's necessary to have a lawyer.
There are numerous types of low-level hearings that supposedly
do not require a lawyer. Ha Ha. Go in without one and
you're screwed.
Guess what. Laywers are expensive.
Being jailed for contempt of court is more expensive. Being subject to
judgment for an unpaid bill, not contesting an unfair bill, it more
expensive. It's a matter of being less screwed.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument
in court. There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law
work. Being subject to court action sucks, but there's no choice but
to assert their legal rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
There's a federal program that contributes to legal aid for the poor,
and there are unaffiliated lawyers and university legal clinics that may
be willing to help. It's difficult but not impossible.
Once again, there's what exists on paper and what exists in
reality. On paper there is Legal Aid. In reality it is
often not available.
Did the person defending himself from collection even look for an
attorney he could afford or a public aid attorney or a pro bono attorney?
Did he try?

Your position that he gets to win the civil suit but made no effort
whatsoever to present his case or find an attorney who might help him is
completely specious.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
It's better than no lawyer when one needs a lawyer.
Not really. . . .
Yes, really, because then one gets to make an ineffective counsel argument
later, or he can sue the attorney. That doesn't happen if one represents
himself.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up. . . .
Well, that will definitely get the lawyer disbarred.
Ha ha ha. Do you know the reality of public defenders
for criminals? Even though that's constitutionally
guaranteed, that's crap, too.
A lawyer who misses his court call can be disbarred. If he has a client,
he's ethically required to provide effective counsel. Missing court is
clear evidence of ineffective counsel.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
hancock, even if the justice system were perfectly fair, which it is
not, there will always be a need for lawyers.
Do you have any idea what a competent lawyer--if you could find
one--charges? Even a simple matter runs into thousands of dollars.
Yes I do, hancock. Repeating myself for the brain damaged: If there's a
choice between jail or prison versus hiring a lawyer to provide
effective counsel, the latter is the cheaper alternative. Just like
going to the hospital and getting treated for an emergency condition is
the cheaper choice than, well, dying and being unable to provide for
one's family.

Your position is absurd. What you're actually saying is that there's no
value to life and liberty for a poor person, that he should just let
himself get screwed in court and die because he cannot afford medical
treatment instead of finding a way to get the professional help needed
at the time it's needed, even if it means paying for it.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-12 23:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Kermie,obviously not a lawyer but irrefutably a fool.

Failure to appear in a civil case means judgment by default. Failure to appear in a criminal case means the judge will ordinarily.

Too many want to be lawyers in this news group.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 00:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dumphone clipped what I wrote about a defendant in a criminal case.

Ordinarily when a criminal defendant fails to appear, the judge orders him arrested and placed under an appearance bond. Or if he’s already under a bond, then his bond was revoked.
BTR1701
2020-02-13 01:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Kermie,obviously not a lawyer but irrefutably a fool.
Failure to appear in a civil case means judgment by default. Failure
to appear in a criminal case means the judge will ordinarily.
Ordinarily what? Did you seize up mid-sentence?
Post by t***@gmail.com
Too many want to be lawyers in this news group.
Too many want-to-be English speakers in this newsgroup.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 14:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hey you big dummy, has it not dawned on you the debtors’ prison and the scam that CBS is pointing out carry a distinction without a difference?

Attorney Hassenfluck, put this jerk in jail!
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-13 08:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Kermie,obviously not a lawyer but irrefutably a fool.
Failure to appear in a civil case means judgment by default. Failure to
appear in a criminal case means the judge will ordinarily.
Too many want to be lawyers in this news group.
hi seamus

Did you somehow miss that the topic of discussion was indeed the jailing
of defendants in civil suits for failure to show up in court?
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 13:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jailing a defendant for failure to appear in court In a civil lawsuit for debt is same as debtor’s prison.

There is no real difference there.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-13 17:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jailing a defendant for failure to appear in court In a civil lawsuit for d=
ebt is same as debtor=E2=80=99s prison.
There is no real difference there.
hi seamus

There is a real difference there. You're just too stupid to see it. We
are discussing people who were jailed for missing mandatory court
appearances. That would be for a few hours till they post bond. They have
not been convicted of a crime. Prison for unpaid debt was a sentence for
committing a crime.

You're an idiot.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 17:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I hate to defile the word IDIOT by calling you one, but requiring a civil suit defendant who is a debtor to come to court under pain of contempt is unconstitutional. ACLU is already assembling a posse.

You are one galactically stupid bitch.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-13 20:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
I hate to defile the word IDIOT by calling you one, but requiring a
civil suit defendant who is a debtor to come to court under pain of
contempt is unconstitutional. ACLU is already assembling a posse.
You are one galactically stupid bitch.
Wow. Watching an episode of Law & Order qualifies you to make that
statement?

You're an idiot, seamus.
j***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 21:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by t***@gmail.com
I hate to defile the word IDIOT by calling you one, but requiring a
civil suit defendant who is a debtor to come to court under pain of
contempt is unconstitutional. ACLU is already assembling a posse.
You are one galactically stupid bitch.
Wow. Watching an episode of Law & Order qualifies you to make that
statement?
You're an idiot, seamus.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/debtors-prisons

stupidPOScocksuckerKermie
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-02-13 18:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 3:19:28 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

[personal insults snipped]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Once again, there's what exists on paper and what exists in
reality. On paper there is Legal Aid. In reality it is
often not available.
Did the person defending himself from collection even look for an
attorney he could afford or a public aid attorney or a pro bono attorney?
Did he try?
Whether you care to accept it or not, the reality is that
it is difficult for a poor person to get a public aid or pro bono attorney
or even basic assistance to assist them with court or administrative
actions.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A lawyer who misses his court call can be disbarred. If he has a client,
he's ethically required to provide effective counsel. Missing court is
clear evidence of ineffective counsel.
Once again, whether you choose to believe it or not, the reality
on the ground is very different. There are sleazy and incompetent
attorneys out there. When a poor person gets screwed, it is
very difficult for them to get justice afterwards. Complain
to the bar association? Complain to the law firm? Complain
to the government? It rarely works.
David Johnston
2020-02-14 05:17:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
There's a federal program that contributes to legal aid for the poor,
Not for civil cases, but there are private charities that finance legal
aid for civil cases.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and there are unaffiliated lawyers and university legal clinics that may
be willing to help. It's difficult but not impossible.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-14 08:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument
in court. There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law
work. Being subject to court action sucks, but there's no choice but
to assert their legal rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
There's a federal program that contributes to legal aid for the poor,
. . .
Not for civil cases,
Yes for civil cases. I'm talking about Legal Services Corporation, which
was chartered by Congress, and contributes to comparable organizations
at the state level.
Post by David Johnston
but there are private charities that finance legal aid for civil cases.
That is also true.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-14 09:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Again, worthless as teats on a boar.

All appearance, no reality.

Kermie, you’re a windbag.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-14 16:58:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Again, worthless as teats on a boar.
All appearance, no reality.
Kermie, you=E2=80=99re a windbag.
Hi seamus
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-14 09:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Legal aid for the poor in civil cases: about as worthless as the teats on a boar hog.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-02-14 16:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Legal aid for the poor in civil cases: about as worthless as the teats on a boar hog.
Hi seamus
j***@gmail.com
2020-02-17 22:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Legal aid for the poor in civil cases: about as worthless as the teats on a boar hog.
Hi seamus
Hello, you chattering little weasel. Your effort at an analogy between requiring a civil defendant to appear in court and an attorney's obligation to appear is the work of a halfwitted simpleton. Attorneys don't get disbarred for failure to appear in court, but they may get sanctioned or disciplined. What if the attorney is tied up in another case in another jurisdiction? You are such a cheeky little imp.

Attorneys get disbarred over matters of moral turpitude, like embezzlement from trust funds, or dealing cocaine on the side, or being cheeky little twits raving with nonsense, like you.

Your days of being the wannabe lawyer in this NG are OVER! Do you hear me, little bitch? You are my bitch now, Kermie.
Horace LaBadie
2020-02-12 19:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense. There's a myth that receiving public
aid or disability is an easy street, but that's bullshit.
It's rough. A poor person's life is often between, as
they say, a rock and a hard place.
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up.
Unfortunately, both political streams screw the poor.
Republicans want to deny benefits altogether to save
money, or at best impose very onerous requirements
to qualify. Republicans think all poor people are
con artists milking the system. Liberals are clueless to
the real environment of poor people, good and bad, and what
their real needs are. Liberals often create
ridiculous bureaucracies.
[snip]
The real scandal here is that the rule used to jail the "offender" was
suggested by the lawyer who is suing the patients for collection, and he
is being paid in part by the bail money that the jailed people then have
to post.
moviePig
2020-02-12 21:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks. Often
they'll get fired for that. It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense. There's a myth that receiving public
aid or disability is an easy street, but that's bullshit.
It's rough. A poor person's life is often between, as
they say, a rock and a hard place.
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so. Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up.
Unfortunately, both political streams screw the poor.
Republicans want to deny benefits altogether to save
money, or at best impose very onerous requirements
to qualify. Republicans think all poor people are
con artists milking the system. Liberals are clueless to
the real environment of poor people, good and bad, and what
their real needs are. Liberals often create
ridiculous bureaucracies.
[snip]
The real scandal here is that the rule used to jail the "offender" was
suggested by the lawyer who is suing the patients for collection, and he
is being paid in part by the bail money that the jailed people then have
to post.
Double-duty as the hit-and-run driver, then as the ambulance-chaser!
FPP
2020-02-12 22:46:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Missing a day of work for a low-income person sucks.  Often
they'll get fired for that.  It's stupid to force them to
spend the whole day in jail.
What you're saying makes no sense. Appearances at court hearings aren't
optional. If they have to miss the day of work, doesn't it make more
sense to show up for the hearing than to miss work by spending time in
custody in contempt of court?
Poor people are often faced with choices imposed on them
that make no sense.  There's a myth that receiving public
aid or disability is an easy street, but that's bullshit.
It's rough.   A poor person's life is often between, as
they say, a rock and a hard place.
Not helping is the bureaucratic minefield people have
to negotiate, and that poor people have limited
administrative skills to do so.  Many poor people
have health issues which don't help.
They're in an unfamiliar setting and fighting against
people who do it every day and know the rules and procedure.
A poor person gets screwed in such settings.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If appearing every three months to put off bill collection isn't
suitable for their circumstance, then they need to make an argument in court.
There are legal aid attorneys and some pro bono law work. Being subject
to court action sucks, but there's no choice but to assert their legal
rights in court and to deal with the matter.
Ok, let's be clear that (1) it's very difficult for a poor
person to obtain legal aid assistance for civil matters,
and (2) the quality of such help is often very poor, like
a first year law student who knows nothing about the issues.
A real lawyer may be loaded down with a high caseload and simply
doesn't have time to properly handle a case, or even show up.
Unfortunately, both political streams screw the poor.
Republicans want to deny benefits altogether to save
money, or at best impose very onerous requirements
to qualify.  Republicans think all poor people are
con artists milking the system.  Liberals are clueless to
the real environment of poor people, good and bad, and what
their real needs are.  Liberals often create
ridiculous bureaucracies.
[snip]
The real scandal here is that the rule used to jail the "offender" was
suggested by the lawyer who is suing the patients for collection, and he
is being paid in part by the bail money that the jailed people then have
to post.
Double-duty as the hit-and-run driver, then as the ambulance-chaser!
One would hope he's the for-profit prison operator, too..
--
The No. 1 scam to NOT fall for: Anything Trump, his campaign, or his
sycophants say.
They are all liars. He is little more than a cult leader with a rabid
base of followers who have left reason, logic, critical thinking, and
common sense behind.
Let’s face it: If Trump had not been born rich, he would either be
unemployable or he would be running some boiler room scamming people out
of their hard-earned money.
RichA
2020-02-10 22:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Liar.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-11 00:04:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
Feel The Bern
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/ZFSpuQtf-wY/xMTLdSZJAgAJ
NoBody
2020-02-11 19:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
"Tres Biggs went to jail for failing to appear in court for unpaid
medical bills."

Failure to appear in court can be a crime.
j***@gmail.com
2020-02-12 14:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
CBS News reported how Kansas is jailing people over
unpaid medical debts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
"Tres Biggs went to jail for failing to appear in court for unpaid
medical bills."
Failure to appear in court can be a crime.
Not in my state, not in civil court-- they're just defaulted.
t***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 14:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In Winston-Salem, we have this judge, a loopy female by the name Victoria Roemer who jails people behind on their rent.

She got bitch-slapped by the Judicial Standards Commission and is back on the bench sharking and shirking like nothing happened.
Loading...