Ohio courts illegally jailing the poor

http://news.yahoo.com/report-ohio-courts-illegally-jailing-124942197.html

That happened here in Santa Rosa County years ago to my daughter. They said she didn't pay a court cost for a ticket and arrested her at 6 am one morning only to find it was a computer error.

How is that illegal?

Get a ticket, pay the fine or learn to drive better. Are we going to start letting people skate from their obligations just because they are making less money than others?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:How is that illegal?

Get a ticket, pay the fine or learn to drive better. Are we going to start letting people skate from their obligations just because they are making less money than others?

You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal.

Court costs should be recovered through civil lawsuits, not jail time, the report said.

My daughter spent a year on violations of probation, which meant every day dealing with poor people who had not paid their probation fees and were coming before the court for hearing as to their violation of the terms of their probation. They would have hearings which the judge would determine if the Defendant had sufficient funds, and the Prosecutor had actually hired a civil firm to go after the debt in civil court.

I think the statement You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal. is a bit broad. In fact they can and do jail people where after a hearing it is determined that they have jobs or assets which could be used to pay the debt. Once that determination has been made by the court, a rule to show cause issues, and a defendant can be found to be in contempt of court for not paying the fine. So a person can in fact be jailed for debts where it is shown by the state that they have assets which can be applied to the fine. My daughter says that most defendants have nothing, and they simply turn the collection of the fines over to the private collection lawyers who cannot get blood from a turnip.......however, as the story goes about the defendant who drove to court in a corvette, and the judge from the bench watches the defendant get out of the car and then he comes into court and says he has no money to pay his fines.....the Judge asks who has title to the car.....I do judge......I will enter an order that the corvette will be turned over to the sheriff in 7 days if the fine is not paid in full........in this case the fine was paid in full, but had the defendant not followed the court order, or had simply quit coming to court....the court would issue a rule to show cause....the defendant would be found in contempt, and in fact he could be jailed for the debt not being paid as ordered. So folks can and do find jail cells who owe debt or fines to the court, but the critical component that the Supremes want is a hearing as to the ability to pay.

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:How is that illegal?

Get a ticket, pay the fine or learn to drive better. Are we going to start letting people skate from their obligations just because they are making less money than others?

You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal.

Then how is it that dead-beat dads are jailed for non payment of a court ordered debt? I understand that it would be a "contempt of court" charge, but it is still a debt nevertheless. If you failed to pay court costs that would also be contempt and a judge could issue a bench warrant.

Child support is a bit different. The amount owed is owed for the support of the children.....so even if a deadbeat dad files bankruptcy.....his responsibility still is not discharged, but the due process considerations still apply even in a child support case. If a parent has no visible means of making any kind of payment, they are entitled to a hearing on the rule to show cause before being jailed, and what a judge may do is make a dead beat dad report back to the court once a week where he has applied for jobs and how he fed himself that week. When judges do that, it is when the defendant does not show up in court, or he disobeys the judge and does not look for a job that week......they can find the jailhouse door, but the sad thing is that poor people often cannot take care of themselves, and the additional trips to court only dig them deeper into a hole, and the kids become more at risk.

Sounds like a consent decree.

2seaoat wrote:Court costs should be recovered through civil lawsuits, not jail time, the report said.

My daughter spent a year on violations of probation, which meant every day dealing with poor people who had not paid their probation fees and were coming before the court for hearing as to their violation of the terms of their probation. They would have hearings which the judge would determine if the Defendant had sufficient funds, and the Prosecutor had actually hired a civil firm to go after the debt in civil court.

I think the statement You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal. is a bit broad. In fact they can and do jail people where after a hearing it is determined that they have jobs or assets which could be used to pay the debt. Once that determination has been made by the court, a rule to show cause issues, and a defendant can be found to be in contempt of court for not paying the fine. So a person can in fact be jailed for debts where it is shown by the state that they have assets which can be applied to the fine. My daughter says that most defendants have nothing, and they simply turn the collection of the fines over to the private collection lawyers who cannot get blood from a turnip.......however, as the story goes about the defendant who drove to court in a corvette, and the judge from the bench watches the defendant get out of the car and then he comes into court and says he has no money to pay his fines.....the Judge asks who has title to the car.....I do judge......I will enter an order that the corvette will be turned over to the sheriff in 7 days if the fine is not paid in full........in this case the fine was paid in full, but had the defendant not followed the court order, or had simply quit coming to court....the court would issue a rule to show cause....the defendant would be found in contempt, and in fact he could be jailed for the debt not being paid as ordered. So folks can and do find jail cells who owe debt or fines to the court, but the critical component that the Supremes want is a hearing as to the ability to pay.

I find that story quite dubious,Seaoat as to whether the judge had the authority to take property from a defendant to pay a fine.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:How is that illegal?

Get a ticket, pay the fine or learn to drive better. Are we going to start letting people skate from their obligations just because they are making less money than others?

You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal.

Then how is it that dead-beat dads are jailed for non payment of a court ordered debt? I understand that it would be a "contempt of court" charge, but it is still a debt nevertheless. If you failed to pay court costs that would also be contempt and a judge could issue a bench warrant.

Now what they do is send it to a collection agency. You can also do community service in lieu of the debt at minimum wage.

I find that story quite dubious,Seaoat as to whether the judge had the authority to take property from a defendant to pay a fine.

It is called a turn over order, and whether the defendant had the asset in a bank account, in his pocket, or in his driveway, he can have the asset turned over to be transferred to cover the fine, or in child support cases to pay child support arrearage.........pretty common and mundane practice.....but quite dubious is a good use of the language.....just have some money in a bank account........tell the judge you cannot pay your fine.....a notice is sent to your bank for a non wage garnishment......a date is set for return.......the judge says the fine is 2k, and your bank account is light 2k, or your vehicle is turned over for sheriff's auction, and the money is applied to the fine, with the balance of money returned to the defendant.

quite dubious......does that equate with......I do not understand?

Do you think a debt incurred in a civil setting is somehow superior to a debt in the form of a fine in a criminal proceeding? I am curious if you are at all familiar with how fines or judgments are even collected, and the multitude of methods to do the same?

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:How is that illegal?

Get a ticket, pay the fine or learn to drive better. Are we going to start letting people skate from their obligations just because they are making less money than others?

You're not too swooft, are you? Jailing people for debts is illegal.

Failure to pay a fine has always meant JAILTIME. Where have you been?

Failure to pay a fine has always meant JAILTIME. Where have you been?


Nope, Dreams has made very valid points......it is in between both your positions that the truth will be found.

2seaoat wrote:I find that story quite dubious,Seaoat as to whether the judge had the authority to take property from a defendant to pay a fine.

It is called a turn over order, and whether the defendant had the asset in a bank account, in his pocket, or in his driveway, he can have the asset turned over to be transferred to cover the fine, or in child support cases to pay child support arrearage.........pretty common and mundane practice.....but quite dubious is a good use of the language.....just have some money in a bank account........tell the judge you cannot pay your fine.....a notice is sent to your bank for a non wage garnishment......a date is set for return.......the judge says the fine is 2k, and your bank account is light 2k, or your vehicle is turned over for sheriff's auction, and the money is applied to the fine, with the balance of money returned to the defendant.

quite dubious......does that equate with......I do not understand?

Do you think a debt incurred in a civil setting is somehow superior to a debt in the form of a fine in a criminal proceeding? I am curious if you are at all familiar with how fines or judgments are even collected, and the multitude of methods to do the same?

I am familiar w/ how judgements are collected but I am skeptical of what you say is correct. I know they can seize your assets in a criminal case if it is used in a crime but I am doubtful they can seize your assets for a fine. I am going to check that out.

I am skeptical of what you say is correct

Well think about it awhile.......if a criminal fine is not paid, the prosecutor can turn it over to a civil court on simple debt collection.......so why would a civil judgment or a criminal fine be any different in collections? Now, the use of a turn over order or judicial deed are used all over the country to collect assets for fines or judgments.......where most of the criticisms from the ACLU is the use of the rule to show cause, where judges automatically are putting people in jail without a hearing to determine assets.....but the courts have always supported levies against assets to pay judgments or fines.......nothing extraordinary there.

2seaoat wrote:I am skeptical of what you say is correct

Well think about it awhile.......if a criminal fine is not paid, the prosecutor can turn it over to a civil court on simple debt collection.......so why would a civil judgment or a criminal fine be any different in collections? Now, the use of a turn over order or judicial deed are used all over the country to collect assets for fines or judgments.......where most of the criticisms from the ACLU is the use of the rule to show cause, where judges automatically are putting people in jail without a hearing to determine assets.....but the courts have always supported levies against assets to pay judgments or fines.......nothing extraordinary there.

I don't believe a criminal court judge can tell someone to turn over their car for seizure for a fine. Now if your talking about a debt that a judgement is obtained and a writ of execution levied on property that is different. All debts are civil now including criminal fines. The story you told is just not done or legal,I believe.

let me keep this discussion positive.....lets talk about a criminal courts ability to enforce restitution for a victim.......assets are turned over all the time.......lets talk about the aggressive forefeiture statutes in federal and state criminal courts........is not the basis of those civil in nature, even though they are in the criminal statutes? Your boat is transporting drugs, and there is a forfeiture hearing and the judge transfers title.......now that same drug charge has a 100k fine, and the judge does a turn over order on the boat......are you telling me that judges do not have this authority, or are you questioning due process issues?

2seaoat wrote:let me keep this discussion positive.....lets talk about a criminal courts ability to enforce restitution for a victim.......assets are turned over all the time.......lets talk about the aggressive forefeiture statutes in federal and state criminal courts........is not the basis of those civil in nature, even though they are in the criminal statutes? Your boat is transporting drugs, and there is a forfeiture hearing and the judge transfers title.......now that same drug charge has a 100k fine, and the judge does a turn over order on the boat......are you telling me that judges do not have this authority, or are you questioning due process issues?

You're talking about something different. The asset was used in the commission of a crime and yes, it can be forfeited.I think you have this confused w/ paying a fine for a criminal offense. If the asset wasn't used in the crime the court has no jurisdiction over it other than a civil disposition to collect the fine.

If the asset wasn't used in the crime the court has no jurisdiction over it other than a civil disposition to collect the fine.

hmmmm......I am confused.......and your final answer is that a defendant who has a criminal fine of 2,000, and has 2,000 in a bank account......the criminal judge has no mechanisms to collect that fine, and must turn this over to a civil court.........yep.....I must be the one who is confused.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/national/141125903.html

Here we go again.....more confused people......golly gee......its an epidemic.

Dreams has issued an arrest warrant for the judge:

If the asset wasn't used in the crime the court has no jurisdiction over it other than a civil disposition to collect the fine.

I am just playing with you so please do not go ballistic saying I am being arrogant, mean, or a know it all........its just after years in the title business this is simple common knowledge, and I mean no disrespect.....you are simply wrong.

2seaoat wrote:If the asset wasn't used in the crime the court has no jurisdiction over it other than a civil disposition to collect the fine.

hmmmm......I am confused.......and your final answer is that a defendant who has a criminal fine of 2,000, and has 2,000 in a bank account......the criminal judge has no mechanisms to collect that fine, and must turn this over to a civil court.........yep.....I must be the one who is confused.

Yes, you are. You can't take people's assets w/o what is called due process. The judge doesn't have the power to just take people's possessions like you said. Victim restitution involves attachment through a civil court like in the OJ case.

Yes, you are. You can't take people's assets w/o what is called due process.

Did you read my link, and now are you trying to change the topic to due process, when I just asked you above which of the concepts you were having a problem with........really.

The criminal judge noticed up a hearing which put Rod on notice that his state pension was going to have a portion turned over to settle the fine.....what part of this are you having difficulty with. You attacked Pace, but really.....I am being incredibly polite tonight........remember what we talked about a few days ago.......it only hurts once to say you are mistaken about a subject......ouch....and then it is over......you have made excellent points, and the very creation of the thread shows you are knowledgeable about the problem......but to say I am confused......really. How many times do we have to do this?

That's a state retirement account. You were talking about taking someone's car. I still don't believe they can take your personal bank account or car to satisfy a legal debt and leave you penniless. Show me where they can do that. Even the federal bankruptcy statutes don't allow that.

2seaoat wrote:Yes, you are. You can't take people's assets w/o what is called due process.

Did you read my link, and now are you trying to change the topic to due process, when I just asked you above which of the concepts you were having a problem with........really.

The criminal judge noticed up a hearing which put Rod on notice that his state pension was going to have a portion turned over to settle the fine.....what part of this are you having difficulty with. You attacked Pace, but really.....I am being incredibly polite tonight........remember what we talked about a few days ago.......it only hurts once to say you are mistaken about a subject......ouch....and then it is over......you have made excellent points, and the very creation of the thread shows you are knowledgeable about the problem......but to say I am confused......really. How many times do we have to do this?

No,Seaoat! This is what you said. You're backtracking now.They judge ordered the guy to turn over the car. As I said there has to be due process. There was notification as to the forfeiture of his pension. Quite different than taking someone's car for a fine. What I said was true. You don't go to jail for debts in this country. You are totally twisting it now.

Even the federal bankruptcy statutes don't allow that.


Dreams.....you need to stop this nonsense why you still have a semblance of pride. You keep talking about things which your really do not understand. The Bankruptcy court does not allow a government issued fine to be discharged. In the absence of discharge, a debtor has no protection under the bankruptcy code, and yes a judge can issue a turnover order. As usual we are going to evolve into pure silliness and you are going to get angry with me.

You don't go to jail for debts in this country. You are totally twisting it now.

Here we go chasing our tails again....you accusing me of twisting, when you simply misuse and do not understand legal terms. Pace says of course people go to jail if they do not pay their fines....you say nobody can go to jail for not paying their fines.........The truth is simple. If a court holds a hearing to determine a criminal defendant has assets, they in fact can order the defendant to turn over those assets. The due process happens when the court gives sufficient notice and the defendant can argue why the asset is protected in a hearing......but at the end of the hearing the judge can order a turn over order, and if the defendant with assets defies a court order, they most certainly can be put in jail. This stuff is really not that difficult to understand, and I really do not see why you are being foolish.