- 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
EPA claims it can garnish wages without court order
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:49 am
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:49 am
quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules.
According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order."
The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2 unless the agency receives enough adverse public comments by August 1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."
LINK
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 7:02 am
11
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:51 am to Strannix
Damn right wingers 
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:52 am to Strannix
quote:
accused
Holy shite. We are headed to hell in a sewer pipe.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:55 am to Strannix
Get a rope...
Posted on 7/9/14 at 6:59 am to Strannix
quote:
The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."
What the frick actually constitutes significant in their eyes ?!
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:01 am to tysonslefthook
quote:
What the frick actually constitutes significant in their eyes ?!
Lol obviously not garnishing someones wages
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:10 am to Strannix
go complain on their site and see how fast you get an audit or visit from the EPA and then have YOUR wages garnished. What a fricking joke this country has become.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:11 am to Strannix
Here is the email to express adverse comments:
jones.anita@epa.gov
I don't know how to legally frame my response, would something along the lines of 4th amendment be applicable here:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Or perhaps the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thoughts? They make complaints public so I want to at least sound somewhat legally correct
jones.anita@epa.gov
I don't know how to legally frame my response, would something along the lines of 4th amendment be applicable here:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Or perhaps the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thoughts? They make complaints public so I want to at least sound somewhat legally correct
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:17 am to Strannix
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:17 am to KosmoCramer
It also appears to be a violation of Debt Collection Improvement Act:
LINK
Section 303 part (c): )
And perhaps:
Debt Collection Improvement Act
LINK
Section 303 part (c): )
quote:
No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency
thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
And perhaps:
Debt Collection Improvement Act
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:18 am to SpidermanTUba
Here it is Spidey:
Administrative Wage Garnishment
Summary -
Administrative Wage Garnishment
Summary -
quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend EPA's claims collection standards to implement the administrative wage garnishment provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). The direct final rule will allow the EPA to garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:21 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
It also appears to be a violation of Debt Collection Improvement Act:
Actually the DCIA is what authorizes is
quote:
This direct final rule implements the administrative wage garnishment provisions in section 31001(o) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of the 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, codified as 31 U.S.C. 3720D. Under the administrative wage garnishment provisions of the DCIA, Federal agencies may garnish administratively up to 15 percent of the disposable pay of a debtor to satisfy a delinquent non-tax debt owed to the United States. Prior to the enactment of the DCIA, Federal agencies were required to obtain a court judgment before garnishing non-Federal wages. Section 31001(o) of the DCIA preempts State laws that prohibit wage garnishment or otherwise govern wage garnishment procedures.
LINK
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:22 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Section 31001(o) of the DCIA preempts State laws that prohibit wage garnishment or otherwise govern wage garnishment procedures.
This seems unconstitutional to me.
What are your thoughts?
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:22 am to Strannix
Looks like you still get a hearing:
quote:
In accordance with the requirements of the DCIA and the implementing regulations at 31 CFR 285.11, the EPA is adopting the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11 concerning administrative wage garnishment, including the hearing procedures described in 31 CFR 285.11(f).
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:23 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
This seems unconstitutional to me.
Wow. That quick, huh? Takes the SCOTUS months to decide their cases.
The garnishment is of debt already owed. You get a hearing. I fail to see the problem.
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 7:24 am
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:25 am to SpidermanTUba
Chill out, sweetheart.
I was just creating a little discourse across the aisle. You don't have to get all combative just yet.
I would think being a person that values the freedoms this country provides you'd be opposed to this.
Just talking out loud.
I was just creating a little discourse across the aisle. You don't have to get all combative just yet.
I would think being a person that values the freedoms this country provides you'd be opposed to this.
Just talking out loud.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:25 am to SpidermanTUba
Yeah. Having a opinion around here before the scotus rules is how it should work around here now tuba?
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:26 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The garnishment is of debt already owed. You get a hearing. I fail to see the problem.
Obviously, I didn't delve as far as I should. That may satisfy the due process clause.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:28 am to Strannix
pretty sure the EPA has had some epic beat downs at the hands of the USSC recently, and this seems like it is just falling in kind
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 7:28 am
Posted on 7/9/14 at 7:29 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
What are your thoughts?
There's definitely some internal inconsistency.
You have this statement:
quote:
Section 31001(o) of the DCIA preempts State laws that prohibit wage garnishment or otherwise govern wage garnishment procedures.
But then you have this statement:
quote:
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News