It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jailed for Debt in the U.S. in the 21st. Century

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Jailed for Debt in the U.S. in the 21st. Century


www.allgov.com

More than a hundred and fifty years ago, Americans were thrown into jail for not paying their debts, until the country did away with so-called debtors’ prisons in 1833. Today, similar punishments have returned for those in over their heads in debts.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Debt -related arrests are on the rise in states across the country. In short : when you loose your job and the last bit of money does not go to your creditors but rather to feed your family , you just might find yourself in jail.


A show of power if you will ; by those who really control our Federal and local governments... www.youtube.com... ..

www.allgov.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Btw this has been discussed before:

In Jail for Being In debt



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Exactly. So a person is due in court to dispute a debt, or to explain why he/she can't pay the debt and it should be forgiven, or other arrangements made, and that person doesn't show up? Of course, a warrant will be issued. This person was not jailed for a debt, but for not appearing in court to address this debt.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Maybe the FEMA camps are actually the new debtors prisons.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by L.HAMILTON
 


This is the way of the future.
If you cant pay your debt you will be given a choice

1. Go to prison and work it off
2. Join the military and the army will cover your debt.

No such thing as a draft... as you have willingly signed on the dotted line.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...


I dont think there is a difference. Debt is still the original cause and jail is still the end effect no matter how you look at it or reword it. So I personally think the title is not misleading.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by alaskan
Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”


Actually no...


Semantics - Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata


And this isn't a trivial point... for example, it doesnt matter what you have been subpoenaed to court for, jaywalking, speeding ticket, the neighbor claims you are burning corpses on a daily basis but is a lunatic and is wrong and you would even win...

But if you don't show up for court you get arrestd and put in jail... That is not semantics... NO ONE has been jailed for debt... they have been jailed for not showing up for court.... had they shown up, they would never have been jailed...

You see the difference?

Maybe you don't, because you didn't understand the definition of semantics to begin with.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
What ever happened to default judgements?

If you don't show up to dispute the debt, you automatically default and a judgement is rendered. Never heard of anyone going to jail for not showing up?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
What ever happened to default judgements?

If you don't show up to dispute the debt, you automatically default and a judgement is rendered. Never heard of anyone going to jail for not showing up?


Default Judgements are at the will of the Judge presiding... however, most take it as if you have disrespected the court... SOOOOO.... if you are SERVED with papers, then you MUST show, or you CAN be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT... it's pretty basic...

At which point a WARRANT will be issued for you, because the JUDGE will take offense to your disrespect of the original SERVICE...



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...


I dont think there is a difference. Debt is still the original cause and jail is still the end effect no matter how you look at it or reword it. So I personally think the title is not misleading.


It doesn't matter WHAT the cause is. If you don't show up to court for any reason once summoned, you will have a warrant out for your arrest.

You can summon someone to court for practically any reason. Say I sue you for... eating my last banana... and you did not show up to court.

Would you really reason that you were arrested for eating my last banana?

The same goes with this debt, it's nothing but a the creditors banana.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...


I thought that if one failed to show in court over a debt, that he or she would be found in default? I've known some who this has happened to and they found their paychecks to be considerably less than what they had expected.


[edit on 19-6-2010 by Dewi Winters]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dewi Winters
 


I had a situation several years ago, where the local Sheriff turned up at my door several days in a row attempting to serve a summons...

Had no idea what it was about, but eventually got a call from a collector who left a message. Appeared to be an old debt my GF had forgot about.

We sought out an attorney, who said that basically the debt was about to expire, and the collections agency attempted to bring it to the attention of a court.

The amount was for $250... We said "Well we can pay it..." and She said.. I wouldnt... they are trying to get more than that by taking you to court... and if you contact them, it would make matters worse.

We thought about hiring her, and she said "Well, I wouldn't do that either, because I'm going to charge you $500, which is twice what you owe anyway"

So, hands being tied, we let the debt expire... but had we been served... we would have HAD to show up... or get a warrant... and get jailed on the next routine traffic stop.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...


I dont think there is a difference. Debt is still the original cause and jail is still the end effect no matter how you look at it or reword it. So I personally think the title is not misleading.


It doesn't matter what you get a summons for... if you dont' show, you will most likely have a warrant out for your arrest... and you will be put in jail. It doesnt even matter if you were at fault to begin with or not... disrespecting a court summons is grounds for being Jailed.. PERIOD.

And when they take your mugshot and incarcerate you, the reason listed will be "FAILURE TO HONOR SUMMONS".... and that's what makes the difference.



[edit on 19-6-2010 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I changed my mind from my last post, I think either interpretation is valid. As in both "the man was jailed for debt" and "the man was jailed for missing court" because either one is right depending on how you use semantics and how you think about the social construct of government(combine that with even more semantics). "the man was jailed for missing court" is legally correct, but I wouldn't say using "jailed for debt" in a non-legal is dishonest either.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by CREAM]

[edit on 19-6-2010 by CREAM]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by alaskan
Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”


Actually no...


Semantics - Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata


And this isn't a trivial point... for example, it doesnt matter what you have been subpoenaed to court for, jaywalking, speeding ticket, the neighbor claims you are burning corpses on a daily basis but is a lunatic and is wrong and you would even win...

But if you don't show up for court you get arrestd and put in jail... That is not semantics... NO ONE has been jailed for debt... they have been jailed for not showing up for court.... had they shown up, they would never have been jailed...

You see the difference?

Maybe you don't, because you didn't understand the definition of semantics to begin with.



Actually no...

You show up to court to avoid jail and the judge orders you to make
payments on your debt. If you don't pay, you go to jail for disobeying
a court order.

Semantics or no semantics, in an instance such as this, you will be going
to jail for not paying your debt by court order. You will be going to
debtors prison. It is happening as I type.

Debt collectors now enjoy the threat of jail time for those not paying
their creditors.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by rival]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CREAM
 

Well..

I don't mean to be cliche... you can interpret it anyway you want... but if you get put in jail for not showing to a court hearing... doesnt matter what it is... you will be jailed for not showing up...

Meaning, that you could have avoided jail simply by showing up... so it wasn't the debt that caused the issue, it was the disrespecting of the summons...

What you are exhibiting is what is typically called "Addictive Thinking", where a result is associated with a false cause, which allows the brain to blame others as opposed to taking responsibility for ones own actions.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by alaskan
Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”

source : www.dictionary.com



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join