3 ms·
It is not very different. People don't show up for a variety of reasons, including inability[1] and plaintiff shenanigans[2]. But yes, people looking for a rea
by _jal 7y ago
It is not very different. People don't show up for a variety of reasons, including inability[1] and plaintiff shenanigans[2].
But yes, people looking for a reason to blame the victim will use process arguments like that to ignore the reality of what is happening.
[1] We're talking about people with medical issues and no money; that can mean no car or no house or no personal mobility.
[2] As anecdata, someone I know was sued for nonpayment of a loan. Papers were served by mail and arrived the day of the hearing; postal carrier timing meant it arrived right as she would have had to appear, even if she hadn't been at work. Default judgement, and she didn't have the money to hire a lawyer to contest it. See how that works?
- mnm1 7y agoI was sued and the order to appear never arrived. I spoke to the judge and she said it doesn't matter. If it was sent out with USPS, it's considered delivered. They don't have to prove it was even delivered.
- bpodgursky 7y agoThis article was clear that the judge required defendants to be properly served. I can't speak to everywhere, but I thought that was pretty standard practice.
- 77pt77 7y agoYou mean the judge that never even studied law?
- bpodgursky 7y agoYes, that one, if you read the article like I did: > He made sure no one was arrested unless they’d been reached by personal service or certified mail. > As long as the defendant had been properly served, the judge’s answer was always yes. I'm not trying to justify anything else, but the experience of being arrested without being properly served does not align with the article in question.
- 77pt77 7y agoNot even registered mail?