Monday, April 02, 2012
STATUS OF BARDES V. MAGERA, ET. AL.
Click here for an update on Bardes v. Magera et al. Readers may recall "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE." While this outcome was predictable, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bardes elected to represent himself, Mr. Bardes appears to have raised some legitimate issues that were never addressed by the Court.
Click here for an update on Bardes v. Magera et al. Readers may recall "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE." While this outcome was predictable, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bardes elected to represent himself, Mr. Bardes appears to have raised some legitimate issues that were never addressed by the Court.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Lawsuits, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Monday, April 18, 2011
ANOTHER BAD IDEA: "DORCHESTER COUNTY MIGHT LEASE JAIL"
According to "Dorchester County might lease jail<" ”The Dorchester County center occasionally holds more than 300 inmates in a facility built for half that number. The building is not up to code, has security problems and safety issues. The needs are critical, according to architects who recently reviewed the center. The legal liability alarms council.”
We wonder how many of the Dorchester County inmates are convicts and how many are incarcerated because they are in arrears on their child support obligations and lack the ability to address the debt. We also wonder how all the "fines" and "fees" accessed against "Deadbeat Dads" are being utilized and how much these revenues total. And until these questions are answered, we do not think that there is any point in discussing building a new jail, much less discussing how the construction and operation of that new jail is going to be financed.
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
NOTICE TO BRISTOL COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS PRISONERS
Souza, et al. v. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, Bristol Civil Action No. 02-00870
Souza, et al. v. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, Bristol Civil Action No. 02-00870
You may be a plaintiff in a class action law suit filed in 2002 in the Bristol Superior Court challenging certain fees charged by Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson. The Court has decided that this case covers all Bristol prisoners who paid any of the following fees under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program:
- The $5.00 dollar per day "cost-of-care" fee;
- Fees for medical care;
- Fees for GED services or tests;
- Any haircut fee in excess of $1.50 per haircut.
In 2004, the Court ruled that these fees were unlawful and ordered the Sheriff to stop collecting them. On January 5, 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected the Sheriff's appeal. On January 7, 2011, the Court established a procedure to pay back the illegally seized fees.
If you want your money back, you must file a Claim Form by April 7, 2011. If you did not receive a Claim Form in the mail, you may obtain one by writing to:
Bristol County Jail Class Action
P.O. Box 2002
Chanhassen, MN
55317-2002
This is also the address where you must submit the Claim Form.
If you submit a Claim Form and it is approved, you will receive the amount of fees you paid, plus am additional 10% in interest. However, depending on the number of claims made, your actual payment might be reduced as a result of any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.
Questions? visit http://www.bristolcountyjailclassaction.com/ or call Toll Free 1-888-764-4439. http://www.mcls.net/english
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Misconduct, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
COURT FINES AND FEES IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
Bill Davis writes in the latest edition of "South Carolina Statehouse Report" :
A dust up this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the seemingly small issue of whether state courts will get to keep the fees and fines they charge could serve as a Statehouse weathervane, telling which way the state’s tax structure may be headed.
Two years ago, S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal began warning legislators about the state court system’s financial woes -- that drooping funding was resulting in a growing case backlog and the loss of key staff.
Last year, the House moved to give the courts more money,and early this session, the Senate began taking up the issue. Spurring the fight in the Senate committee was the shift in funding sources feeding the courts.
According to 1997-98 numbers provided by Senate Finance staff, the courts received just short of 40 percent of its funding from the state’s General Fund budget.
But by 2007-08, that General Revenue had dropped to 34 percent. Tax cuts led to fewer dedicated state dollars. Then a series of mid-year tax cuts hit the courts hard, just as cuts impacted dozens of other state agencies and services. In the end, relying less on General Fund money forced the courts to rely more on fines and fees.
Courts argue to keep fines, fees
Toal came and spoke before legislators on Tuesday, and further made her case.
“As I began my tenure as your chief justice 10 years ago, it took about $46.5 million to run the state court system and almost all of it was raised by regular general appropriations funds,” said Toal, a former House member. “There were no federal funds and very little in the way of state fees.”
The House Ways and Means general revenue budget for the Judicial Department for 2010-11 is $22.6 million. Toal told senators that the courts system is in reality down $11.5 million, thanks to end-of-the-year budget cuts and rapidly evaporating federal stimulus funds. “We can't continue to operate like this.”
Back in committee, with Toal’s remonstrance still in their ears, the full Judiciary tackled the issue. And that’s when the fight over fees and fines started.
Several members of Judiciary, including its chairman,Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston) dug in their heels about keeping all fines and fees at home in the court system.
The rhetoric that popped up, according to several sources, was that there was no way Judiciary was going to turn over the fines and fees to the Finance Committee to squirrel away into the General Fund and then distribute the money to other agencies.
This got to the philosophical heart of the issue.
Library approach vs. Netflix approach
In the past, South Carolina state government budgeting has been more like a library, where resources are put in collectively, and then drawn out by priority.But now with fines and fees becoming more prevalent as an “other funding source” in budgeting nomenclature, will the state process become more like Netflix and force citizens to pay for services they use through fees, fines and special charges?Fines and fees have been a comfortable lightning rod for state government’s critics. The S.C. Policy Council released a report last year that said that a full third of the state’s overall budget, approximately $7 billion, was from fines and fees.
That may be an oversimplification, as Budget and Control Board spokesperson Michael Sponhour pointed out, that the $7 billion could also include categories of funding like tuition.
McConnell said that, because of the current ongoing tax revenue downturn, he saw no reasonable option but to let the courts keep their fines and fees. But, he added, he would look for a different solution in two years or so, when tax revenues have likely rebounded.
Finance Chair Hugh Leatherman (R-Florence) said he was also “OK” with allowing the courts to keep them, too. He said it will likely be three to four years before the state’s economy “gets back to what it was.”
Leatherman likened the situation with the courts to DHEC, which generates a large amount of its budget through permitting fees and fines.
Shortfalls of Netflix approach
Critics, such as Sen. Robert Ford (D-Charleston), say fines and fees are “shadow taxes.” Ford, seated in the antechamber of the Senate this week, said “a tax is a tax is a tax, and fines and fees are taxes.”Charging fees may be good for the courts, but Ford said it was tough luck for innocent people hauled into court who still had to pay them.Holley Ulbrich, a senior scholar at the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson University, said fines and fees have an extra marketing value to legislators.
“They are easier to sell than a tax, because if it’s earmarked, then it’s easier for [voters] to see it going for something specific, versus just being poured into the General Fund,” said Ulbrich.
But there are downsides to this kind of budgeting, she said. “This is like a teenager just asking money from their parents for one thing,” said Ulbrich.
South Carolina is far from the only state struggling with making its budget and striking the balance between taxes and fines and fees. North Carolina had a similar situation last year, but responded with income and sales tax increases to offset roughly half the funding gap.
North Carolina, a hotter hotbed of progressive politics than conservative South Carolina, has a longer history in raising taxes and investing in the state, as evidenced by the success of the Research Triangle in that state.
Some watchers are now concerned that with North Carolina increasing taxes and South Carolina, where the House passed a measure this week to cut all corporate income taxes, could fall behind again because of its aversion to tax increases.
“It’s short-sighted,” said Ulbrich, commenting on what she sees as the state falling behind funding its “educational infrastructure.”
McConnell disagreed, saying the success of hydrogen research at Clemson, the institute’s home, and the landing of Boeing expansion in the Charleston area, the state can keep up with its neighbors.
Crystal ball: With Judiciary voting to keep fines and fees in the hands of the court system, the Netflix “pay-as-you-go” funding approach will likely continue -- at least until more money arrives in state coffers via an improving economy or (gasp!) a tax hike. And with economic forecasts predicting a flat revenue curve until at least 2013, it could get more serious.
We agree with both South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford and State Senator Hugh Leatherman. While fines and fees are "shadow taxes," the Court System ought to be able to use them for operating expenses. However, to avoid a repeat of the events in Beaufort County and Dorchester County, there should be both transparency and accountability regarding the collection and expenditure of these funds.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Thursday, February 25, 2010
MORE USER FEES MAY BE ON THE WAY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
We call the readers' attention to "SC Fee Hike Alert: Court Cost Increases." We also call the readers' attention to "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."
As readers may recall, Mr. Bardes takes exception to what he considers to be unlawful fee assessments by the South Carolina Family Courts. And while, as we have said before, we do not necessarily agree with either some of his methods or some of his conclusions, we think that Mr. Bardes has raised some interesting questions about unmonitored slush funds and hidden taxes in the form of Family Court "user fees." And, we also think that he has raised some interesting questions about the legality of some of the "fees" being levied in South Carolina Family Court.
We call the readers' attention to "SC Fee Hike Alert: Court Cost Increases." We also call the readers' attention to "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."
As readers may recall, Mr. Bardes takes exception to what he considers to be unlawful fee assessments by the South Carolina Family Courts. And while, as we have said before, we do not necessarily agree with either some of his methods or some of his conclusions, we think that Mr. Bardes has raised some interesting questions about unmonitored slush funds and hidden taxes in the form of Family Court "user fees." And, we also think that he has raised some interesting questions about the legality of some of the "fees" being levied in South Carolina Family Court.
Labels: Lawsuits, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Thursday, February 04, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTS TO REIN IN HIDDEN FEES AND TAXES
The South Carolina Senate recently passed Senate Bill 517. This bill now goes to the South Carolina House, where the similar House Bill 3576 is still under consideration. Both bills would require that all fee increases by state agencies, departments, and entities be approved by the General Assembly before their implementation.
We applaud the South Carolina General Assembly for its efforts in this area. While some folks argue that implementation of "user fees" is sound public policy, we oppose them because, among other things, we are cognisant both of the potential for abuse and the difficulty in monitoring the practice of imposing user fees.
The South Carolina Senate recently passed Senate Bill 517. This bill now goes to the South Carolina House, where the similar House Bill 3576 is still under consideration. Both bills would require that all fee increases by state agencies, departments, and entities be approved by the General Assembly before their implementation.
We applaud the South Carolina General Assembly for its efforts in this area. While some folks argue that implementation of "user fees" is sound public policy, we oppose them because, among other things, we are cognisant both of the potential for abuse and the difficulty in monitoring the practice of imposing user fees.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA PANEL URGES CHANGES IN SENTENCING
According to an article* in The Post and Courier, "South Carolina prison beds should be reserved for the most violent offenders, the state's Sentencing Reform Commission recommended Tuesday." The article continues:
We agree-South Carolina "can do better" in adressing the related issues of jail overcrowding and budget shortfalls. Whether it will or not is the question. Unfortunately, our prediction is that as long as incarcerating people for minor offenses is a profit-making enterprise and allows for the imposition of unmonitored "user fees," reforms will not occur. This is especially true in the area of child support collection.Certain nonviolent offenders, such as drug users, should be given alternative sentences, including probation and community service, and geriatric and terminally ill inmates should be released to make room for murderers, drug traffickers and rapists, according to the commission's long-awaited report (emphasis added).
Such moves would save more than $92 million dollars in prison operations in the next five years and prevent the need to build a $317 million jailhouse, the report said.
The savings could be shifted to the currently overwhelmed probation and parole system, but the money to keep a better watch on criminals out on the street won't be immediately available.
The report** calls for the Legislature to adopt a package of 24 recommendations that came from the commission's study of the upsurge in repeat offenders, the overcrowding of state and local jails, the increase in inmates incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, the lack of alternative sentences and the impact of the prolonged budget slump in South Carolina.
Key findings also include classifying 24 additional crimes as violent offenses and requiring probation and parole agents to perform specific risk assessments that evidence has found strongly indicate a person's likelihood to commit future crimes.
State Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Hartsville Democrat who led the commission through it's yearlong study, said he is optimistic that the Legislature can put significant reforms in place before its adjourn this summer.
"We can do better," he said. "'We cannot afford to build new prisons in South Carolina, but we also can't afford not to keep our citizens safe."
*Read the entire article here.
Labels: Child Support Collection, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Saturday, January 30, 2010
TIME TO TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES
We posted "TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES" on June 2, 2009. Given South Carolina's increasing unemployment rates and declining ability to provide social services for its most vulnerable citizens, we renew the call.
We posted "TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES" on June 2, 2009. Given South Carolina's increasing unemployment rates and declining ability to provide social services for its most vulnerable citizens, we renew the call.
Labels: Family Court Reform, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Sunday, June 14, 2009
SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATOR WANTS TO BILL INMATES
The Post and Courier reported in today's edition that South Carolina State Representative Chip Limehouse wants to pass state wide legislation authorizing the imposition of user fees on county inmates. Although impostion of user fees is already being done in a number of counties without legislative authorization, we note that we have previously stated that we think this is a bad idea. Additionally, we suspect that many County Sheriffs will resist this legislation because they would then have to account for the money they are receiving from various unmonitored sources.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES
An editorial in The Post and Courier exhorts government entities to Tell public how money is spent. We think this is a good idea. We would especially like to know how much money the Family Courts and Sheriffs' Offices are generating through fines, fees, interest, penalties, and court costs and how these funds are being spent. Keep in mind that it was recently discovered that a jail captain in Dorchester County South Carolina managed to embezzle at least $300,000 without anyone noticing. The fact that so much money could have been taken without detection alone suggests that the amounts of off-the-book receivables must be staggering.
Labels: Family Court Reform, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Thursday, May 28, 2009
ONCE FAMILY COURTS AND THE SHERIFFS' OFFICES JOIN THE TRANSPARENCY MOVEMENT THE JIG IS UP
South Carolina Representative Nathan Ballentine recently reported on his Blog Town of Irmo joins transparency movement. Along these lines, The Summerville Journal Scene reported Town monthly budget figures now online. On-line posting of this type of information should improve accountability and transparency. And once the Family Court and the Sheriff's Offices join the Transparency Movement the jig is up. The public will then know exactly how those slush funds, fines, and fees are being spent.
South Carolina Representative Nathan Ballentine recently reported on his Blog Town of Irmo joins transparency movement. Along these lines, The Summerville Journal Scene reported Town monthly budget figures now online. On-line posting of this type of information should improve accountability and transparency. And once the Family Court and the Sheriff's Offices join the Transparency Movement the jig is up. The public will then know exactly how those slush funds, fines, and fees are being spent.
Labels: Government Reform, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Sunday, April 19, 2009
IS JAILING "DEADBEAT DADS" DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD?
In the article "Question: Is Court-Ordered Child Support Doing More Harm Than Good?"* authors Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. and Geraldine Jensen present two compelling and opposing arguments. However, we submit that the wrong question is being asked. The better question which was posed by Tony Fantetti is "Should 'deadbeat dads' face jail time?" As Mr. Fantetti points out, many fathers cannot meet their financial obligations. And he then goes on to suggest:
Of course, we--as a society--would never even consider incarcerating a mother merely for being financially irresponsible, particularly without hard empirical evidence that spending some time "in the barb-wired hotel all dressed up and nowhere to go" would somehow teach those mothers how to be responsible. Otherwise, Octoplet Mom would be spending time in Los Angeles County Jail rather than spending time with Dr. Phil. So why are we so eager to take this approach with fathers? Should we not at least answer the question of whether jailing "Deadbeat Dads" is doing more harm than good. Should we not consider not just whether THE RECESSION is contributing to homelessness, but whether it is impacting on the ability of fathers to continue to pay child support at the Court-ordered levels as well.Those demanding the incarceration of fathers in arrears on child support should themselves be jailed for their own overdue payments to their creditors. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Discriminately incarcerating one class of people (fathers) for overdue financial obligations in a society, and not incarcerating others who are guilty of the same, amounts to a state-sanctioned discriminatory inquisition.Perhaps all single mothers with delinquent and outstanding medical bills for treatment of their children should be summarily jailed? If a father becomes involuntarily unemployed following massive layoffs, and is without income and therefore "refuses" (or so he's accused) to pay his child support should be jailed for being a "deadbeat," then it logically follows that a mother who "refuses" to seek medical treatment for a sick child simply because she is without the means to pay is also without a valid excuse and should be locked up as well.
Labels: A. C. L. U., Child Support Collection, Civil Contempt, Family Court Reform, Inmate Labor, Silly Laws, Sixth Amendment, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A.C.L.U. CRITICIZES BRUTAL AND OVERCROWDED CALIFORNIA JAIL
According to A.C.L.U. Criticizes Jail:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is calling for the closing of the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail, saying it is so overcrowded and brutal that it threatens the mental health of inmates. The conditions are “medieval and drive men mad,” Melinda Bird, a senior counsel for the group, said at a news conference on Tuesday. Mary Tiedeman, the group’s jail project coordinator, said she routinely saw inmates with “black eyes and bruised bodies” who contend that other prisoners or guards beat them. Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for Sheriff Lee Baca, said that any accusations of violence by guards were reviewed by the county’s Office of Independent Review.
We wonder how many of the Los Angeles County inmates are incarcerated for failure to pay debts. And we wonder how the living and safety conditions in Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail compare to the living and safety conditions in Berkeley County South Carolina where an inmate was recently beaten to death by a fellow inmate. And we wonder if the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail is as crowded as the Charleston County South Carolina Jail. And we wonder whether the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail is either profiting from inmate labor or using more inmate slave labor than is being used by either the State of Ohio or by Berkeley County South Carolina. And we wonder if the Los Angeles County Sheriff's wallet is getting fat as inmates are growing thinner.
At the end of the day, there is little or no oversight over how these jails are run, so it is no wonder that they are often used as cash cows and free labor pools. Slavery is alive and well in America--especially, it appears, in South Carolina.
Labels: A. C. L. U., Child Support Collection, Civil Contempt, Inmate Labor, Jail Overcrowding, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Friday, April 17, 2009
THREE VIEWS ON IMPOSING "USER FEES" ON JAIL INMATES
There is a growing trend throughout the United States for Cities to increasingly rely on the use of "user fees" to fill budget gaps. More and more often, those user fees are being imposed upon inmates. But, while one of the authors of the two articles at this link argues that inmate "user fees" are appropriate because they are a fiscal fix and the other argues against their imposition on the basis that the costs of collection exceed the revenues generated, we take a third view. We do agree with Pat Nolan that "fees should not be deducted from money sent by inmates' families" and that it "is wrong to do so." But, we would add that taking any money--or "volunteer services"--from inmates who are incarcerated because they did not meet their financial obligations to their families is immoral. This money rightfully belongs to the children and should not be utilized to pay overtime at the jail or for meals for visiting dignitaries or parties or character training or anything else that does not directly benefit the children of the inmates.
There is a growing trend throughout the United States for Cities to increasingly rely on the use of "user fees" to fill budget gaps. More and more often, those user fees are being imposed upon inmates. But, while one of the authors of the two articles at this link argues that inmate "user fees" are appropriate because they are a fiscal fix and the other argues against their imposition on the basis that the costs of collection exceed the revenues generated, we take a third view. We do agree with Pat Nolan that "fees should not be deducted from money sent by inmates' families" and that it "is wrong to do so." But, we would add that taking any money--or "volunteer services"--from inmates who are incarcerated because they did not meet their financial obligations to their families is immoral. This money rightfully belongs to the children and should not be utilized to pay overtime at the jail or for meals for visiting dignitaries or parties or character training or anything else that does not directly benefit the children of the inmates.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
DEBTORS' PRISONS ARE BEING CREATED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES: "IF WE DON'T GET TECHNICAL"
In Pinched Courts Push to Collect Fees and Fines the reporter writes:
The reporter notes that "Constitutional law forbids jailing people solely over fees and fines they cannot pay, but Florida officials argue that, technically, they are jailing people because they violated court orders" (emphasis added).Since 2004, the [Florida] Legislature has required courts to support their operating expenses substantially, through fees collected by county clerks. Some of the clerks use collection agents, while about a third use the Collections Courts, state officials said. Here in Leon County alone, 839 people were arrested and jailed in the year ended last September over court debts or failure to appear at Collections Court, according to a study by the Brennan Center. Other Florida counties have less stringent policies.Around Leon County, there are some 5,400 outstanding “blue writs” — the civil equivalent of an arrest warrant for failing to appear and pay fees. Some people come in and pay when they receive their summons; others spend a night or more in jail, often having been arrested when the writ pops up during incidents like routine traffic stops.
So "technically speaking," those who are incarcerated as a result of their inability to meet their child support obligations, are not serving time in Debtors' Prison, but are serving time "because they violated court orders." However, if we do not both get technical and willingly suspend both disbelief and common sense, we have to admit that our county jails are fast becoming Debtors' Prisons. Pay the debt buddy and you can go home.
Labels: Sixth Amendment, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Saturday, March 21, 2009
WHAT'S GOING ON IN DORCHESTER COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA?
Lawyerahead.com has posed the question What’s Going on in Decatur, AL?
We would like to know what's going on in Dorchester County South Carolina regarding a full accounting of the stolen jails funds. We would also like assurances that as "prisoners grow leaner [the new Sheriff's] wallet [won't] grow fatter." As we previously wrote on June 18, 2008:
Our recommendation to Sheriff-elect Knight is to serve FOIA requests on Sheriff Nash as soon as possible to determine where the money that Nash is collecting is going, how much he collected from inmates for the processing fees, has much has been returned, and how much "volunteer labor" was supplied to Nash's friends. If Mr. Knight does not do that now, he will be facing an unbelievable mess when he takes office in January.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
TEXT OF COMPLAINT AGAINST CLINCH COUNTY GA. FOR CHARGING "ROOM AND BOARD"
Click here to review a copy of the class action Complaint filed against Clinch County Georgia and its former Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff arising out of the imposition of "user fees" against jail detainees. Note that we previously mentioned this lawsuit.
We predict that as operating budgets become more stressed, more and more local governments will attempt to impose unlawful taxes masquerading as "user fees."* We also predict that more successful lawsuits will be pursued against local governments who try to raise revenues in this manner.
*See also, An Excise Tax is not a User Fee.
Labels: Lawsuits, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Saturday, February 28, 2009
DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE
Those readers who have electronic access to Federal Court documents may want to review the Complaint David Bardes filed against the South Carolina Department of Social Services and the Charleston County Council. We are somewhat familiar with both Mr. Bardes and his grievances with the Family Court and DSS. Click here to read an old letter he sent to DSS and click here and scan down to review his comment to one of our posts.
We do not agree with Mr. Bardes 100%, however, we think he has some legitimate complaints, particularly given some of the recent problems exposed at DSS. Among other things, he objects to the imposition of the 5% child support payment processing fee which, according to this post, is not supposed to go into effect until "implementation of the State wide Child Support System," presumably whenever this Legislation is enacted. And as the comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?" demonstrates, Mr. Bardes is not alone in his dissatisfaction.
We are at a loss as to how the Family Courts have apparently managed to ignore Court Orders and prematurely increase the child support processing fees. If not authorized either in the Final Support Orders or by Statute, from where does the authority to impose "Court Costs" of 5% come? As $67 Million and counting of fines demonstrates, South Carolina is nowhere close to "implementation of the State wide Child Support System."
If (the editorial) we were members of the South Carolina General Assembly we would take a good, long, hard look at not only this 5% "Court Cost" assessment, but at all the fees and fines that are running through the Family Court accounts. We would also give some serious consideration to passing this legislation.
Those readers who have electronic access to Federal Court documents may want to review the Complaint David Bardes filed against the South Carolina Department of Social Services and the Charleston County Council. We are somewhat familiar with both Mr. Bardes and his grievances with the Family Court and DSS. Click here to read an old letter he sent to DSS and click here and scan down to review his comment to one of our posts.
We do not agree with Mr. Bardes 100%, however, we think he has some legitimate complaints, particularly given some of the recent problems exposed at DSS. Among other things, he objects to the imposition of the 5% child support payment processing fee which, according to this post, is not supposed to go into effect until "implementation of the State wide Child Support System," presumably whenever this Legislation is enacted. And as the comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?" demonstrates, Mr. Bardes is not alone in his dissatisfaction.
We are at a loss as to how the Family Courts have apparently managed to ignore Court Orders and prematurely increase the child support processing fees. If not authorized either in the Final Support Orders or by Statute, from where does the authority to impose "Court Costs" of 5% come? As $67 Million and counting of fines demonstrates, South Carolina is nowhere close to "implementation of the State wide Child Support System."
If (the editorial) we were members of the South Carolina General Assembly we would take a good, long, hard look at not only this 5% "Court Cost" assessment, but at all the fees and fines that are running through the Family Court accounts. We would also give some serious consideration to passing this legislation.
Labels: Federal Fines, Lawsuits, Non-custodial Parents, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
ONCE AGAIN WE PRESENT: HIDDEN TAXATION IN FAMILY COURT!
We received only one comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?." The commenter was upset with the 5% fee he was having to pay along with his child support. Personally, we think he has a legitimate complaint. As we have indicated previously, the processing fee should be a flat rate for everyone, not more for those who pay more child support. It costs the same to address and place a stamp on an envelope containing a $1200 check as it does to address and place a stamp on an envelope containing a $280 check. In fact, the Family Court may earn interest on the average daily balances in its Accounts, so the person who pays the higher amount of child support and the larger processing fee may actually be earning more for the Family Court than the person who pays less child support and a smaller processing fee.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Monday, February 16, 2009
IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?
Greenville Online reported last week in "State spending sources questioned," “The state budget of roughly $7 billion is only about a third of the amount the state spends, according to the study, with another $7 billion laid on taxpayers in fees outside legislative review and another $7 billion the state spends in federal funds.”
This article substantiates our long-held suspicion that at least some State Agencies are apparently running a sort of “shadow government” outside the purview of the Legislature. Among them are the Family Courts which set and collect fines from “Deadbeats” with no oversight from the Legislature and no accountability to anyone. Oftentimes the people against whom the fines are accessed cannot afford counsel. And they have no choice but to pay the assessment or go to jail and remain there until they “purge themselves of Contempt.”
Certainly, we do not advocate terminating the powers of Civil Contempt possessed by Family Court Judges. But, until the Family Courts provide an accounting of how much they are receiving and how they are spending it, there should be a suspension of Civil Contempt fines. The power of Contempt is supposed to be utilized to increase compliance with Court Orders, not either to enrich the coffers of the State or to make up budget deficits.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
