 |
Hello
My sister-in law went to court for credit card debt . The judge ordered her to get a job she is 50 and never worked. Can a judge order her to get a job? This is in the state of Maine. He said if she didn't have a job in 2 months she will be in contemt. Thank -you
Yes he can order her... and he did. If she can get a credit card and max it out, she can't just not pay because she doesn't want to work.
If there is no medical reason why she can't work, she will need to in order to pay off the debt.
Hello shari:
A judge can rule ONLY whether a defendant is guilty of a crime or responsible for a debt. He can't order anyone to work.
excon
People found gulity in court are ordered to do things all the time... jail time, community service, rehab, etc. Ordering the defendant to get a job is no different. Just like the said ordered things, if she doesn't comply she is in contempt of a court order.
A judge can order anything he wants. Of course, 2 months isn't a whole lot of time to find a job of any substantial means, besides minimum wage at McDonald's or something like that.
BY ordering someone to get a job, to pay a debt, is placing that person in slavery to the benefit the creditor, Slavery is not permitted in the US.
THe judge by doing so has violated his oath of office, to uphold the constitution.
We the people!!
Omg, that's not slavery. That's called being an adult and having responsibilities. The judge didn't order her to work for free. She ran up a bill; she has an obligation to pay it. Once she pays the bill, she can quit if she wants to.
2 months is completely fair, even if it is a minimum wage job. She doesn't have to go out and start making $70,000 a year; she only has to obtain some form of income to repay her debt.
This is no different than when a couple gets a divorce and one of the parties is seeking alimony. If they don't have a job, they are ordered to find one because it's ridiculous to let them live off their ex "just because."
Although I think she should get a job and honor her debts, I don't believe a judge can order it. That would be considered involuntary servitude and is unconstitutional. She needs an attorney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by this8384
Granted one must pay the bills, but I have a problem with any judge who don't obey his oath of office. In this case he abused his power and violated his oath.
Judges and some lawyer are nothing more than debt collectors for the banks and credit card companies, they are protecting the money, nothing more.
We the people need to speak up and challenge the court to obey the constitution, if we don't, we will all be slaves.
Hello again:
If you actually read the laws, you will find the sanctions listed. The sanctions are part and parcel of the law. THOSE sanctions, and ONLY those sanctions, may be imposed on a defendant upon the finding of guilt (in a criminal case) or responsibility (in a civil case).
A judge CANNOT sentence someone to ANYTHING he wants. He just CAN'T!
excon
You're all probably right about the unconstitutionality of judges ordering defendants to get jobs. But I've personally heard judges order people to get jobs in open court.
Well what about in Alabama where the judge ordered 2 men who were convicted of stealing to wear signs outside of the store they stole from saying "I'm a thief".
And one judge ordered men convicted of soliciting sex to wear chicken suits with signs...
A judge can rule what he deems necessary as punishment... thus if a person charges up credit cards, but refuses to work to pay off the debt, the punishment should be for that person to work and make money to spend it!
Hello again mom:
Not all judges obey the law - especially in Alabama! Don't you remember the Alabama judge who was impeached very recently because he refused to obey the Supreme Court to remove something from the public arena that had the 10 commandments on it?
Besides, we're not talking about what the sanctions "should" be. We're talking about what the sanctions "are".
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by macksmom
Judges must follow the rules like you and I. If they don't why have rules? Judges have gotten use to the abuse of power and I personally don't have to take it. I currents have 3 formal complaint against a judge in my county, have place the court on Judicial Notice of Lack of confidence. Violations for oath of office filed, and copies to the Governor. I will not back off from this until this judge is removed from office.
We the People can effect change, but one must voice their opinion
I absolutely agree that the government is out of control and needs to step back from the boundaries which they so blatantly and frequently cross. I myself have filed a complaint against a judge in the circuit court in my district; he's a complete moron who doesn't pay attention to testimony or evidence and then bases his judgments on what he thinks happened but never did.
The difference is that this woman has a financial obligation. She signed a contract stating that she would repay her debt. She did not do so. She ran up a bill and is now trying to wash her hands of it by saying, "I don't have a job; too bad, so sad." The judge has every right to order her to get a job so that her creditor can obtain their judgment.
As I said, this is no different than a divorce or a child support case. When a party files for child support, they must have a job or be actively seeking one so that they are not abusing the system. This woman is an abuser of the system. If she didn't have a means to repay her credit card debt, then she shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
Hello this:Quote:
Originally Posted by this8384
You'll have to show me the law that gives them that right.
In fact, you can't - because a judge doesn't have that right at all. Rights are derived from the Constitution or the law. That's it - nowhere else. They're not made up as you made up this right.
I'll repeat my earlier post. If you actually read a law, you would find that the legislature (whose job is to MAKE law), wrote as part of the law, what happens to people who violate it. The sanctions are listed. A judge, once the finding of guilt has occurred in a criminal case, can sentence a defendant to ONLY what the listed sanctions are - nothing more. A defendant can't get life in the slam for smoking a joint because a judge wants him to. That doesn't happen here.
In a civil case, however, a judge can only render a judgment for the aggrieved party. He can't help the aggrieved party collect. Let me say that again - he can't help the aggrieved party collect. Debtor's prison along with stocks and other public humiliations have been outlawed. We DID do them. We don't anymore.
Do not confuse the above with child support enforcement. In those cases, a judge may order a person to pay, and if he doesn't, he can be held in civil contempt of court and be put in jail.
Now, if you want to talk about how the world SHOULD be, that's another subject. However, here on the law board, we tell it like it IS.
excon
The judge, i.e. the government, has powers that we the people grant. The judge does not have the power to force someone to work. He has the power to grant a judgement in favor of the plaintiff and they can move forward to collect.Quote:
Originally Posted by this8384
Only individuals have rights.
It is a small, but important distinction.
Whoa guys. I think you are all doing a little apples and oranges deal. Judges often have a wide latitude in imposing sentencing. Not all of those sentences however, would stand up under appeal. Remember the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
What a judge can do and what an appeals court will uphold are different animals. A judge can order a defendant to get a job in order to pay back a debt they incurred, and even cite her for contempt if she doesn't. But its unlikely that would be held up on appeal. But then the defendant might not challenge it. Judges often do things they know won't hold up under appeal because they feel they won't be challenged. And the only punishment they would recive is a possible loss of their judgeship, if they find themselves reversed too often. Some judges hate to be reversed so are very conservative. Others are more concerned about justice so will be more creative in their rulings.
Hello again, Scott:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Judges don't "have" wide latitude. They TAKE wide latitude, and if appealed as you noted, would be reversed. Therefore, they have to follow the law, unless of course, they don't care if they're reversed. Some maverick judges don't care, I grant you. That doesn't make what they do legal.
excon
Agreed, But I think many judges "take" a wide latitude because they know the defendants are unlikely to be aware of their rights on appeal. Remember, also was posted in the Small Claims forum where things are a bit more informal.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 PM. |