Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Stole $30, civil restitution for $400.

I already agreed chances were low. I say time and time again its a dice roll its up to each person to decide if they wish to take the risks
 
Please try to put more of an effort into your writing here. You tend to post with a lot of grammatical and punctuation errors which make what you write difficult to follow sometimes.
 
mightymoose said:
Smaller dockets and reduced costs in prosecution of petty offenses that have little or no jail time and only result in fines that are often unpaid and probation- which has additional cost.
Click to expand...
Thank you,Mightymoose. Evidently,"ShrinkMaster,"failed to read my first response to his post in this thread.Typically,Shoplifting is punishable by up to 1 year in jail,but a first offender most always just get's a fine,and/or probation,but I think I explained quite thoroughly in that post,the reasoning behind such civil demand laws,and how it's all about getting Merchants to shift their focus on pursuing an Offender civilly,instead of criminally,and in that process,the government is really the only ones reaping the benefits,and couldn't at all care whether these Retailers get any money at all.
 
Btw... Attention All Shoplifters: Santa Clause,will be sending out a lot of civil demand letters.Now to that let everybody say,"BAH HUMBUG."
 
4Justice_MD said:
Also,if "suit" were to follow the civil demand,a Judge is going to take in consideration a person's financial situation,and if their unemployed,only work part time,on disability income or just have limited assets,the Judge will only order them to pay a very small amount,if anything at all.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that you have little, if any, experience with civil lawsuits. The defendants financial means is never relevant. If the plaintiff proves its entitlement to a judgment, the court will enter a judgment in the amount for which the plaintiff has proven entitlement. A judgment is not an "order to pay," and courts never order civil defendants to pay judgments. A judgment simply gives the plaintiff the right to try and enforce the judgment in accordance with the procedures provided in the applicable state law. Only at the enforcement stage does the defendant's ability or inability to pay become an issue, but it's an issue for the plaintiff/judgment creditor, not for the court.

4Justice_MD said:
You should also understand that some people are what is known as "Judgement Proof,"meaning,whatever income or resources they do have just meets their bare necessities,and they have no assets of value,so the chances of a Retailer actually collecting any awarded judgement may not be realized unless/until the Offender wins the lottery,if ever.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's not what "judgment proof" means. Second, that a debtor-defendant might be judgment proof is not relevant to the creditor-plaintiff's ability to obtain a judgment.
 
zddoodah said:
First of all, that's not what "judgment proof" means. Second, that a debtor-defendant might be judgment proof is not relevant to the creditor-plaintiff's ability to obtain a judgment
Click to expand...
I always appreciate constructive criticism,but when giving out,be sure you look up the meaning of legal terms,that is exactly what it means,and furthermore,I was raising the point,that in suing someone civilly,it is the defendant's ability to pay that hinges on weather you should pursue a lawsuit in the first place.
In being Judgement proof,it is the law that will prevent any plaintiff-creditor from being able to collect on a judgment.
Now,if you had read my post closely,you won't find anywhere where I said,that a plaintiff could not prevail in obtaining a judgement based solely on the merits of the case.
Please read this,and don't be so quick to answer next time.

In the context of contract law, debt collection and civil litigation, the term judgment proof is commonly used to refer to defendants or potential defendants who are financially insolvent, or whose income and assets cannot be obtained in satisfaction of a judgment.[1]

Being "judgment proof" is not a defense to a lawsuit. If sued, the defendant cannot claim being "judgment proof" as an affirmative defense. The term "judgment proof" instead refers to the inability of the judgment holder to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.[1]

If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure
 
zddoodah said:
I'm going to guess that you have little, if any, experience with civil lawsuits. The defendants financial means is never relevant.
Click to expand...
It's "Always" relevant to the "Collection" of the judgment,and that,buddy,is what counts.
Anybody can file a lawsuit,it's being able to collect on that judgment that even makes it worth the time and money involved in doing so.
Hey,you are right about one thing.My expertise is in Criminal Law,not civil,but I know enough to know what I'm talking about,and really,quite a bit more.
 
Last edited:
zddoodah said:
Only at the enforcement stage does the defendant's ability or inability to pay become an issue, but it's an issue for the plaintiff/judgment creditor, not for the court.
Click to expand...
The "Issue" for the plaintiff/judgment creditor is based on state law with regards to what can be collected or seized,and that in turn would be an "issue" for the court to decide,based on what a state's law allows.
So the things I mentioned earlier such as unemployed,working part time,on disability income(no one's government check can be garnished,)and limited assets,or none of substantial value are all situations in which a collection on a judgment would be considered an exemption,or qualify to make someone "judgement proof".
Of course,if someone were to "legally" transfer all their assets over to another person,such as a relative or friend,that would make them "judgement proof as well,like many Doctors have done that in Malpractice Suits.So please,don't spread incorrect information,and don't try to correct any member on here unless you know what your talking about.
 
Last edited:
4Justice_MD said:
when giving out,be sure you look up the meaning of legal terms
Click to expand...

I don't view Wikipedia as a legal source, and "judgment proof" is a colloquialism. I've also been handling legal collection work for over 25 years, so I don't have a need to look anything up.

4Justice_MD said:
So please,don't spread incorrect information,and don't try to correct any member on here unless you know what your talking about.
Click to expand...

Deal, "buddy."

SMH.
 
zddoodah said:
I don't view Wikipedia as a legal source, and "judgment proof" is a colloquialism. I've also been handling legal collection work for over 25 years, so I don't have a need to look anything up.
Click to expand...
LOL,Weather it's "Wikipedia,"or "Black Laws Dictionary,"or some other "online legal dictionary," by whoever,the meaning of "Judgement Proof" won't change to make your contradiction of what I said any more right.The same meaning of the legal term,means the same,anywhere you find it,and regardless of the word being a colloquialism,in the context of civil lawsuits,it has significant legal meaning,and there are state laws that define,all that the word entails.
Btw...I "shake my head" too,when people like you want to be right all the time,even when their not.
So have a great day,Buddy. SMH
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top