9 ms·

US Marshals arresting people for not paying their federal student loans

86 points by salmonet 11y ago

fiatmoney 11y ago
"those attorneys and debt collectors are getting judgements in federal court and asking judges to use the US Marshals Service to arrest those who have failed to pay their federal student loans" The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No story.
- cconroy 11y ago
  But it is not illegal to not pay back private or federal debt, right? The federal gov has ways to get payment via tax refunds and social security benefits.
  - mywittyname 11y ago
    That's what makes this so crazy. They spent thousands in salaries of these federal marshals, plus court costs and time, just to get this guy to sign another promise to pay a couple thousand bucks. They could have forgiven the debt and come out ahead. Or they could have garnished his wages, or seized his assets and got their money while spending very little.
    - idorosen 11y ago
      The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). This only makes sense if pursuing a debtor who is willfully ignoring the debt but otherwise able to pay it. I think use of the police force to enforce private loan contracts is short-sighted based on the ham-fisted overuse of incarceration as punishment in our legal system. Interest rates are already built into the loan instrument to compensate lenders for the risk of nonpayment, while this practice is just kicking someone when they're down...
      - Goronmon 11y ago
        The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). Isn't this pretty much the argument for law enforcement in general? I doubt it's ever "cost effective" to have police respond to say, noise complaints or minor acts of theft, but the goal is to show people that are consequences for breaking the laws or going against court orders.
        idorosen 11y ago
        Yes, but with loans and debt there is already a more apt mechanism for handling exactly the nonpayment case: interest rates. Student loan interest rates would go up with more nonpayment, making them less affordable, making school tuitions grow more slowly, and other knock-on effects based on straightforward supply/demand. (Remember, price just means "willingness to pay", and schools are optimizing tuition pricing and other costs of attendance for which these student loans are taken out based on their own Laffer curve.) Whereas kicking someone when they are down (i.e. already can't pay) is cruel and unusual, I agree that making an example of willful nonpayment makes sense, but that shouldn't be done at the expense of taxpayers(/no need for police involvement). That's why wage garnishment and other tools already exist for lenders to use with a simple court order. If the government foots the bill of enforcement, rather than the lenders footing the bill of wage garnishment intervention and court costs, then it will get represented in taxes rather than loan interest rates, which privatizes the gains (loan payments) and publicizes the losses (enforcement costs). The other side effect is that it subverts supply/demand based pricing of education based on student loan interest rates, which props up higher education price inflation.
- amalag 11y ago
  Isn't the difference that bankruptcy will not erase student debt. Debt collectors otherwise have to take that into account when collecting, but not for student debt.
  - fiatmoney 11y ago
    Bankruptcy can reduce or restructure the actual debt, but that doesn't affect court orders of limited payment towards a debt - they're separate issues (bankruptcy I suppose voids previous orders of payment, but discharagability doesn't affect the court's order of payment). It's extremely common for someone to owe a very large, possibly non-dischargable debt (as a result of a criminal fine, lawsuit, alimony, child support, etc), and the court order is something to the effect of "pay $100 / mo", even if this would never actually pay off the debt.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It is also possible for the ordered payment to be too high to be able to be paid, such as in the case when someone lost a well paying job during a recession but the other party's lawyer argues that they are taking a reduced wage job so they don't have to pay in full. While such cases may be rare, they still signify a problem in our legal system.
      - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
        The most prominent case that I can think of is Dave Foley's run in with Canadian family court law[1]. [1] http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/comedian_dave_foley_fears_arrest_owes_500000_in_childsupport.html http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/c...
- gist 11y ago
  > No story. And in particular $1500 owed since 1987, almost 30 years ago. Now of course we don't know when the last payment was but it makes sense that they would pull an enforcement list based on age of debt and also perhaps smaller amounts where it was clear that the debtor was making no attempt to pay off the debt.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago
    You also have to keep in mind even student debt comes off your credit report after seven years. Why would you pay anything on it after that? You have no incentive to since its not hurting your credit. However, if some Feds showed up on my front porch after 30 years, I'd probably make sure I pay it off promptly. Going to jail or paying off my student loan? No contest there what I would do.
  - sjg007 11y ago
    Why didn't they take it from his tax returns?
    - adventured 11y ago
      He might not have had much or anything in the way of tax returns. For example if he was working under the table a lot, in construction or dozens of other trades.
- efes 11y ago
  > The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. That is itself absurd. As a private person you can really only ask courts to put liens on property (or garnishes on income) to get your money. You essentially must identify specific property you own due to their lack of payment as not paying you isn't a crime. > It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No, they interfere to allow property to be taken by its rightful owner as decided by a court. If you don't struggle to stay in a house you are not arrested when evicted.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    If you fail to comply with a court order, can't you be held in contempt?
elthran 11y ago
>He says seven deputy US Marshals showed up at his home with guns Would I be wrong in thinking all US Marshals would be armed at all times, and the article is trying to make this sound like a SWAT raid? Not that I condone this method of debt collecting - the article seems very light on details. I want to assume that they wrote letters etc before they sent in federal police in order to collect debts. (UK resident)
- MrMember 11y ago
  You are correct, a US Marshal would almost certainly be armed while on duty.
  - fiatmoney 11y ago
    Not only are they armed, they have a reputation for unusually thuggish behavior, since they know it's unlikely a federal court will discipline their own enforcement body.
- gist 11y ago
  Agree. Standard protocol to have a certain number of people (7 marshalls in this case) for safety purposes. Now if the story was "man from local government loan office showed up at door nicely requesting payment" it wouldn't have the necessary tv news story impact nor would it get the attention and the cooperation of the debtor.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
What is the difference between debtors prison and a court system that will rule on a debt, create a court order to pay, and then arrest you for not paying? It sounds like the same thing by another name.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  He was "arrested" in the sense that he was brought into court and forced to show compliance with the court's order (in this case, by signing a payment plan). He was not "imprisoned for a debt". There are legal mechanisms to show inability to pay & the court order is supposed to reflect that, even for non-dischargable debts.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    So debtors prison with a bit of leeway for those determined by the court to be unable to pay the debt. Which means if the court rules wrongly (which does happen), you can end up with being imprisoned for debt. Also, I realize in this case he was just arrested and not imprisoned. I wasn't speaking to just this exact case.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      end up with being imprisoned for debt. The arrest wasn't for debt either, it was for ignoring a court order. I guess if you don't think there should be any legal mechanism to address non payment of debts then courts shouldn't be involved, but refusing or otherwise failing to participate in the legal process is not the same thing as just failing to pay a debt.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        >The arrest The, as in specifying a specific arrest. As I said, I'm talking in general, not in this particular case.
slapshot 11y ago
Really suspiciously light on details. This sounds like a judge issued a bench warrant and he ignored it (didn't go to court on the date he was supposed to go to court). A bench warrant us essentially an order to appear before a court under pain of arrest. If you ignore it, the law enforcement agency with the appropriate jurisdiction (in this case, U.S Marshals) will go "encourage" you to show up. A student loan debt may be the initial reason for the bench warrant (somebody may have tried to collect and the court issued a summons to get him to show up at court and explain why he isn't paying) --- but all he had to do to avoid the problem was to show up... not necessarily pay.
- deckar01 11y ago
  A more accurate title would be "US Marshals arresting people with warrants for not appearing in federal court".
  - mineshaftgap 11y ago
    But, but, but then HN couldn't be outraged.
thrill 11y ago
Invoking the blunt hammer of armed enforcers is an unnecessary act. Any of the debtor's current and future wages can just as easily be garnished with the same stroke of a pen.
jkot 11y ago
Why is that so shocking? About 15% of prisoners are there for debt.
- deckar01 11y ago
  The person in this story was arrested and taken to court, not incarcerated or jailed.
- JBReefer 11y ago
  Calling nonpayment of fines "debt" is disingenuous to the point of propaganda.
  - 50CNT 11y ago
    Doesn't the US have an issue with certain edge cases of fines becoming recursive without terminating? http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/sentenced-debt-some-tossed-prison-over-unpaid-fines-v18380470 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/sentenced-debt... Whilst this case may not be like that, it's still quite worrisome that these kinds of things happen to people.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    "Accounts payable" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But it doesn't change what it is. If you owe someone something, that's a debt, regardless of whether it was an unpaid fine or a financial loan.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Calling all fines as fines, ignoring the origin of them, is also disingenuous to the point of propaganda. Also, the core problem of debtors prison applies in the case of fines (how can you pay while you are in jail/prison).
- brianwawok 11y ago
  citation required
  - 11y ago
erbo 11y ago
And meanwhile, the banks commit outright fraud and are rewarded with bailouts.
jeffrogers 11y ago
I'm guessing the cost of collections -- the attorneys, the marshals, etc -- far exceded $1500.
peter303 11y ago
This article suggests "contempt of court" for not paying civil judgements. Sounds like this will be tested before the Supreme Court some day. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collector-tactic-jail-time.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collecto...
mtimjones 11y ago
When you take out a loan, you should pay it back. But I'm a conservative, so my views differ from most liberals.
- pc86 11y ago
  I'm a conservative and I'd adamantly disagree that "most liberals" don't think you should pay back loans. But I could be wrong - it's totally possible that most liberals buy cars in cash, only rent instead of purchasing property, etc. That's totally plausible.
- diyorgasms 11y ago
  From the guidelines: >Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. This is a pretty classic example of a flamewar topic, and doesn't add anything of substance to the conversation besides uncharitable bait.
ph33t 11y ago
Call me a right-wing loony ... but why aren't we questioning why the government is giving out loans in the first place. Since the proliferation of government student loans in the last 30 years the cost of higher education has gone up significantly. The loans aren't working and enforcing them is a no-win situation.
- diyorgasms 11y ago
  Because the alternative is to offer the poor no opportunity to improve their financial situation through education. Permanent hopeless underclasses do not make for a stable society.
  - adventured 11y ago
    No the alternative was to have properly capped student loans to restrain the cost growth, instead of feeding an extreme inflation cycle by enabling an out-of-proportion growth of those loans. The solution was trivially easy: lock student loan growth to the CPI. Instead the US Government drastically inflated the cost of college by funding student loans far beyond the rate of inflation and with zero concern for the potential to be paid back (perfect setup for a bubble and crash). Universities proceeded to go on an epic and unnecessary building and administration expansion spree, vaporizing hundreds of billions of dollars. All courtesy of the US Government's access to practically unlimited free money (the loaned out sum of which it's now yielding a higher profit on than the combined profit of JP Morgan and Wells Fargo; one of the greatest slush funds in world history).
esbranson 11y ago
Per peter303[1] and Google, a Judgment Debtor Examination in federal court is pursuant to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules authorizing magistrates (non-judge judges) to conduct examinations of judgment debtors. Also see JUDGMENT CREDITOR: MOTION TO COMPEL- SAMPLE OF AUTHORITIES[2] from the US DOJ: In United States v. Teeple, 286 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2002), the IRS served a summons on an individual taxpayer, because he had failed to file tax returns. When the taxpayer failed to comply with the summons, the United States filed suit to enforce. The district court ordered the summons enforced over the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment objection under the act of production doctrine. The taxpayer was held in contempt for not complying with the enforcement order and was incarcerated. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collector-tactic-jail-time.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collecto... [2] http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2006/03/02/exh13.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2006/0...

86 points by salmonet 11y ago

"those attorneys and debt collectors are getting judgements in federal court and asking judges to use the US Marshals Service to arrest those who have failed to pay their federal student loans" The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No story.

cconroy 11y ago
But it is not illegal to not pay back private or federal debt, right? The federal gov has ways to get payment via tax refunds and social security benefits.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  That's what makes this so crazy. They spent thousands in salaries of these federal marshals, plus court costs and time, just to get this guy to sign another promise to pay a couple thousand bucks. They could have forgiven the debt and come out ahead. Or they could have garnished his wages, or seized his assets and got their money while spending very little.
  - idorosen 11y ago
    The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). This only makes sense if pursuing a debtor who is willfully ignoring the debt but otherwise able to pay it. I think use of the police force to enforce private loan contracts is short-sighted based on the ham-fisted overuse of incarceration as punishment in our legal system. Interest rates are already built into the loan instrument to compensate lenders for the risk of nonpayment, while this practice is just kicking someone when they're down...
    - Goronmon 11y ago
      The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). Isn't this pretty much the argument for law enforcement in general? I doubt it's ever "cost effective" to have police respond to say, noise complaints or minor acts of theft, but the goal is to show people that are consequences for breaking the laws or going against court orders.
      - idorosen 11y ago
        Yes, but with loans and debt there is already a more apt mechanism for handling exactly the nonpayment case: interest rates. Student loan interest rates would go up with more nonpayment, making them less affordable, making school tuitions grow more slowly, and other knock-on effects based on straightforward supply/demand. (Remember, price just means "willingness to pay", and schools are optimizing tuition pricing and other costs of attendance for which these student loans are taken out based on their own Laffer curve.) Whereas kicking someone when they are down (i.e. already can't pay) is cruel and unusual, I agree that making an example of willful nonpayment makes sense, but that shouldn't be done at the expense of taxpayers(/no need for police involvement). That's why wage garnishment and other tools already exist for lenders to use with a simple court order. If the government foots the bill of enforcement, rather than the lenders footing the bill of wage garnishment intervention and court costs, then it will get represented in taxes rather than loan interest rates, which privatizes the gains (loan payments) and publicizes the losses (enforcement costs). The other side effect is that it subverts supply/demand based pricing of education based on student loan interest rates, which props up higher education price inflation.
amalag 11y ago
Isn't the difference that bankruptcy will not erase student debt. Debt collectors otherwise have to take that into account when collecting, but not for student debt.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Bankruptcy can reduce or restructure the actual debt, but that doesn't affect court orders of limited payment towards a debt - they're separate issues (bankruptcy I suppose voids previous orders of payment, but discharagability doesn't affect the court's order of payment). It's extremely common for someone to owe a very large, possibly non-dischargable debt (as a result of a criminal fine, lawsuit, alimony, child support, etc), and the court order is something to the effect of "pay $100 / mo", even if this would never actually pay off the debt.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is also possible for the ordered payment to be too high to be able to be paid, such as in the case when someone lost a well paying job during a recession but the other party's lawyer argues that they are taking a reduced wage job so they don't have to pay in full. While such cases may be rare, they still signify a problem in our legal system.
    - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
      The most prominent case that I can think of is Dave Foley's run in with Canadian family court law[1]. [1] http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/comedian_dave_foley_fears_arrest_owes_500000_in_childsupport.html http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/c...
gist 11y ago
> No story. And in particular $1500 owed since 1987, almost 30 years ago. Now of course we don't know when the last payment was but it makes sense that they would pull an enforcement list based on age of debt and also perhaps smaller amounts where it was clear that the debtor was making no attempt to pay off the debt.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  You also have to keep in mind even student debt comes off your credit report after seven years. Why would you pay anything on it after that? You have no incentive to since its not hurting your credit. However, if some Feds showed up on my front porch after 30 years, I'd probably make sure I pay it off promptly. Going to jail or paying off my student loan? No contest there what I would do.
- sjg007 11y ago
  Why didn't they take it from his tax returns?
  - adventured 11y ago
    He might not have had much or anything in the way of tax returns. For example if he was working under the table a lot, in construction or dozens of other trades.
efes 11y ago
> The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. That is itself absurd. As a private person you can really only ask courts to put liens on property (or garnishes on income) to get your money. You essentially must identify specific property you own due to their lack of payment as not paying you isn't a crime. > It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No, they interfere to allow property to be taken by its rightful owner as decided by a court. If you don't struggle to stay in a house you are not arrested when evicted.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  If you fail to comply with a court order, can't you be held in contempt?

elthran 11y ago

>He says seven deputy US Marshals showed up at his home with guns Would I be wrong in thinking all US Marshals would be armed at all times, and the article is trying to make this sound like a SWAT raid? Not that I condone this method of debt collecting - the article seems very light on details. I want to assume that they wrote letters etc before they sent in federal police in order to collect debts. (UK resident)

MrMember 11y ago
You are correct, a US Marshal would almost certainly be armed while on duty.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Not only are they armed, they have a reputation for unusually thuggish behavior, since they know it's unlikely a federal court will discipline their own enforcement body.
gist 11y ago
Agree. Standard protocol to have a certain number of people (7 marshalls in this case) for safety purposes. Now if the story was "man from local government loan office showed up at door nicely requesting payment" it wouldn't have the necessary tv news story impact nor would it get the attention and the cooperation of the debtor.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

What is the difference between debtors prison and a court system that will rule on a debt, create a court order to pay, and then arrest you for not paying? It sounds like the same thing by another name.

fiatmoney 11y ago
He was "arrested" in the sense that he was brought into court and forced to show compliance with the court's order (in this case, by signing a payment plan). He was not "imprisoned for a debt". There are legal mechanisms to show inability to pay & the court order is supposed to reflect that, even for non-dischargable debts.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  So debtors prison with a bit of leeway for those determined by the court to be unable to pay the debt. Which means if the court rules wrongly (which does happen), you can end up with being imprisoned for debt. Also, I realize in this case he was just arrested and not imprisoned. I wasn't speaking to just this exact case.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    end up with being imprisoned for debt. The arrest wasn't for debt either, it was for ignoring a court order. I guess if you don't think there should be any legal mechanism to address non payment of debts then courts shouldn't be involved, but refusing or otherwise failing to participate in the legal process is not the same thing as just failing to pay a debt.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >The arrest The, as in specifying a specific arrest. As I said, I'm talking in general, not in this particular case.

slapshot 11y ago

Really suspiciously light on details. This sounds like a judge issued a bench warrant and he ignored it (didn't go to court on the date he was supposed to go to court). A bench warrant us essentially an order to appear before a court under pain of arrest. If you ignore it, the law enforcement agency with the appropriate jurisdiction (in this case, U.S Marshals) will go "encourage" you to show up. A student loan debt may be the initial reason for the bench warrant (somebody may have tried to collect and the court issued a summons to get him to show up at court and explain why he isn't paying) --- but all he had to do to avoid the problem was to show up... not necessarily pay.

deckar01 11y ago
A more accurate title would be "US Marshals arresting people with warrants for not appearing in federal court".
- mineshaftgap 11y ago
  But, but, but then HN couldn't be outraged.

thrill 11y ago

Invoking the blunt hammer of armed enforcers is an unnecessary act. Any of the debtor's current and future wages can just as easily be garnished with the same stroke of a pen.

jkot 11y ago

Why is that so shocking? About 15% of prisoners are there for debt.

deckar01 11y ago
The person in this story was arrested and taken to court, not incarcerated or jailed.
JBReefer 11y ago
Calling nonpayment of fines "debt" is disingenuous to the point of propaganda.
- 50CNT 11y ago
  Doesn't the US have an issue with certain edge cases of fines becoming recursive without terminating? http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/sentenced-debt-some-tossed-prison-over-unpaid-fines-v18380470 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/sentenced-debt... Whilst this case may not be like that, it's still quite worrisome that these kinds of things happen to people.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  "Accounts payable" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But it doesn't change what it is. If you owe someone something, that's a debt, regardless of whether it was an unpaid fine or a financial loan.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Calling all fines as fines, ignoring the origin of them, is also disingenuous to the point of propaganda. Also, the core problem of debtors prison applies in the case of fines (how can you pay while you are in jail/prison).
brianwawok 11y ago
citation required
- 11y ago

erbo 11y ago

And meanwhile, the banks commit outright fraud and are rewarded with bailouts.

jeffrogers 11y ago

I'm guessing the cost of collections -- the attorneys, the marshals, etc -- far exceded $1500.

peter303 11y ago

This article suggests "contempt of court" for not paying civil judgements. Sounds like this will be tested before the Supreme Court some day. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collector-tactic-jail-time.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collecto...

mtimjones 11y ago

When you take out a loan, you should pay it back. But I'm a conservative, so my views differ from most liberals.

pc86 11y ago
I'm a conservative and I'd adamantly disagree that "most liberals" don't think you should pay back loans. But I could be wrong - it's totally possible that most liberals buy cars in cash, only rent instead of purchasing property, etc. That's totally plausible.
diyorgasms 11y ago
From the guidelines: >Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. This is a pretty classic example of a flamewar topic, and doesn't add anything of substance to the conversation besides uncharitable bait.

ph33t 11y ago

Call me a right-wing loony ... but why aren't we questioning why the government is giving out loans in the first place. Since the proliferation of government student loans in the last 30 years the cost of higher education has gone up significantly. The loans aren't working and enforcing them is a no-win situation.

diyorgasms 11y ago
Because the alternative is to offer the poor no opportunity to improve their financial situation through education. Permanent hopeless underclasses do not make for a stable society.
- adventured 11y ago
  No the alternative was to have properly capped student loans to restrain the cost growth, instead of feeding an extreme inflation cycle by enabling an out-of-proportion growth of those loans. The solution was trivially easy: lock student loan growth to the CPI. Instead the US Government drastically inflated the cost of college by funding student loans far beyond the rate of inflation and with zero concern for the potential to be paid back (perfect setup for a bubble and crash). Universities proceeded to go on an epic and unnecessary building and administration expansion spree, vaporizing hundreds of billions of dollars. All courtesy of the US Government's access to practically unlimited free money (the loaned out sum of which it's now yielding a higher profit on than the combined profit of JP Morgan and Wells Fargo; one of the greatest slush funds in world history).

esbranson 11y ago

Per peter303[1] and Google, a Judgment Debtor Examination in federal court is pursuant to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules authorizing magistrates (non-judge judges) to conduct examinations of judgment debtors. Also see JUDGMENT CREDITOR: MOTION TO COMPEL- SAMPLE OF AUTHORITIES[2] from the US DOJ: In United States v. Teeple, 286 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2002), the IRS served a summons on an individual taxpayer, because he had failed to file tax returns. When the taxpayer failed to comply with the summons, the United States filed suit to enforce. The district court ordered the summons enforced over the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment objection under the act of production doctrine. The taxpayer was held in contempt for not complying with the enforcement order and was incarcerated. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collector-tactic-jail-time.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-bill-collecto... [2] http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2006/03/02/exh13.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2006/0...