- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: EPA plans to start garnishing citizens who "pollute"...
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:27 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:27 pm to LSURussian
check out OMLandshark's thread...apparently he is fat AND stupid
0
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:28 pm to BugAC
quote:
That's cute. You've even learned to parrot Obama's codewords for Republicans.
What's next, you are going to draw a "red line" somewhere?
I have no idea who was in control when the law passed. I've linked to it a couple of times. If you want you can read it. But you won't. That takes work.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:29 pm to Govt Tide
The EPA is just another useful agency for unelected commi radicals to tell us all what to do. Shut it down.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:30 pm to EST
quote:
The EPA is just another useful agency for unelected commi radicals to tell us all what to do. Shut it down.
Because pollution in the air and water is AWESOME
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:33 pm to SSpaniel
he uses "blubbering idiot" a lot...I believe he thinks he is doubling down (which is ironic because he can't multiply by 2)...insulting you while appearing more sophisticated.
I've only heard it used once in actual conversation...though it was an English person, they weren't the crumpets and tea crowd Spidermantuba fancies himself when speaking/typing like that
I've only heard it used once in actual conversation...though it was an English person, they weren't the crumpets and tea crowd Spidermantuba fancies himself when speaking/typing like that
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:34 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Like the Fugitive Slave Act, or the National Prohibition Act, or Public Law 503, or the ACA, or National Defense Authorization Act?
The laws passed by Congress?
so . . .
Care to try again?
Here you geaux.
quote:Please take another bite at the apple Spidy.quote:quote:LINK
Are you under the impression the hearing is conducted via a neutral third party?
You could work a little harder you know.
(6) Hearing official. A hearing official may be any qualified individual, AS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY, including an administrative law judge.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
You are not too bright.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Like the Fugitive Slave Act, or the National Prohibition Act, or Public Law 503, or the ACA, or National Defense Authorization Act?
No. More like the one I linked directly to. Exactly like that one in fact.
quote:
(6) Hearing official. A hearing official may be any qualified individual, AS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY, including an administrative law judge.
These cases are easy. If the garnishment exceeds the legal amount allowed - that's easy to show with a record of your income. If you already paid the debt - also - easy to show. Other than mistaken identity I can think of no other grounds on which to protest a garnishment for a valid debt. Why you would want to bog our legal system down with life appointed judges determining things that a bureaucratic peon could figure out in 10 minutes is beyond me - except that perhaps you just have no clue how government - or anything - works. If you still disagree on the debt sue the government.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:41 pm to EST
quote:k
You are not too bright.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:44 pm to DelU249
quote:
I've only heard it used once in actual conversation...though it was an English person, they weren't the crumpets and tea crowd Spidermantuba fancies himself when speaking/typing like that
Having lived in England, if it was an Englishman it would have likely been blathering idiot.
So spidey gets a double fail.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:58 pm to DelU249
quote:how did you make it this far?
I've only heard it used once in actual conversation...though it was an English person, they weren't the crumpets and tea crowd Spidermantuba fancies himself when speaking/typing like that
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Let's summarize this. You intimated there was due process vis-a-vis a fair hearing. You were under the impression said hearing was conducted via a neutral third party. You cited the law you thought carried your point. It doesn't.
Why you would want to bog our legal system down with life appointed judges determining things that a bureaucratic peon could figure out in 10 minutes is beyond me
The EPA can assign a fine per the Wyoming case, and garnish wages acting as judge jury and executioner. If you debate whether you've actually violated policy, as in the Wyoming case, you are allowed an appeal hearing overseen by an EPA hand-picked official.
Any other deflections in the offing, Spidy?
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:17 pm to NC_Tigah
These are administrative hearings, and as such can be challenged in federal court under the APA. It isn't like the process ends at an administrative hearing. Most federal agencies that have a regulatory jurisdiction (and that is given to them pursuant to a statute) have been empowered to develop administrative hearings process.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:19 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The EPA can assign a fine per the Wyoming case, as judge jury and executioners.
"the Wyoming case"
The EPA has been fining people for decades NC. If you don't agree you've committed the violation, you can appeal.
quote:
The EPA can assign a fine per the Wyoming case, as judge jury and executioners. If you debate whether you've actually violated policy, as in the Wyoming case, you are allowed an appeal hearing overseen by an EPA hand-picked official.
You can appeal to the Article III Appeals Court if you don't agree with the decision.
LIKE HERE:
LINK /
quote:
(Cheyenne, Wyo.) – The State of Wyoming today formally filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals a Petition for Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s action regarding Treatment as State for the Wind River Indian Reservation.
You know what NCTIgah, I've changed my mind. We should get rid of administrative law judges and replace them with Article III judges. Let's start right now! If Congress put a law that did that up for a vote - I'd support it!!!
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:24 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
These are administrative hearings, and as such can be challenged in federal court under the APA. It isn't like the process ends at an administrative hearing. Most federal agencies that have a regulatory jurisdiction (and that is given to them pursuant to a statute) have been empowered to develop administrative hearings process.
Finally, another grown-up!
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:25 pm to wfeliciana
quote:The problem is financial feasibility/sustainability for a victim/defendant who elects to continue that process while his wages are garnished. There is substantial cost to legal defense on nearly any occasion. In this instance it is designed to be disabling.
These are administrative hearings, and as such can be challenged in federal court under the APA. It isn't like the process ends at an administrative hearing. Most federal agencies that have a regulatory jurisdiction (and that is given to them pursuant to a statute) have been empowered to develop administrative hearings process.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The problem is financial feasibility/sustainability for a victim/defendant who elects to continue that process while his wages are garnished.
Dude. He already owes the money. He had a chance to appeal the initial fine assessment at the administrative law level. He had a chance to appeal that to the Circuit court. He had a chance to ask the SCOTUS to review that decision. THE MONEY IS ALREADY frickING OWED AT THIS POINT.
If you can please even name one case in which an appeals court found the EPA improperly adjudicated a GARNISHMENT HEARING - that would be great.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:02 pm to SpidermanTUba
How has the EPA managed to collect fines up until now without garnishments and why is it all of a sudden so necessary? Tax garnishments have been around for many many years and they are based on actual amounts produced by the taxpayer or on estimates that the taxpayer has ample time and warning to eliminate by simply filing his/her actual numbers.
To the poster saying that a court hearing is needed to get a garnishment, not true in the sense that there is an actual hearing. Garnishments are often levied after a general warning letter after a certain period of time after which a debt becomes a final assessment and goes into collections. There is no "court hearing". There is at least SOME limited due process with tax garnishments though.
The examples of the fines being levied and their arbitrary nature is even more concerning than the ability to garnish. The garnishment part seems more like a way to intimidate people into paying fines or "debts" they would otherwise have every right to contest.
To the poster saying that a court hearing is needed to get a garnishment, not true in the sense that there is an actual hearing. Garnishments are often levied after a general warning letter after a certain period of time after which a debt becomes a final assessment and goes into collections. There is no "court hearing". There is at least SOME limited due process with tax garnishments though.
The examples of the fines being levied and their arbitrary nature is even more concerning than the ability to garnish. The garnishment part seems more like a way to intimidate people into paying fines or "debts" they would otherwise have every right to contest.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:04 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
How has the EPA managed to collect fines up until now without garnishments and why is it all of a sudden so necessary?
Dude. You're a moron. THE EPA HAS BEEN COLLECTING GARNISHMENTS
quote:
To the poster saying that a court hearing is needed to get a garnishment, not true in the sense that there is an actual hearing. Garnishments are often levied after a general warning letter after a certain period of time after which a debt becomes a final assessment and goes into collections. There is no "court hearing".
Well no shite sherlock - if you don't appeal by the appeals deadline - YOU LOSE YA frickING IDIOT. THAT'S THE WAY LAW WORKS.
:banghead: the only difference is that now - after you lost your hearing on the fine, appeal to the circuit court in the fine, appeal to the supreme court on the fine, and then lost your hearing on the garnishment - they don't need to go back to court AGAIN to garnish your wages. frickS SAKES
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
There is substantial cost to legal defense on nearly any occasion. In this instance it is designed to be disabling.
That can be said about any part of the system not just administrative law, behind on child support, your wages are garnished. Appear in a state lower court and judge finds you guilty in car wreck, assesses monetary judgment, you don't pay then your wages get garnished. You can appeal most of these but then same issue--you have to spend money to do that.
Page 3 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News