If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..
What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Bob W" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Bob W" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the short hairs. As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're standing in front of them. Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges decision and move it up a notch. Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can. There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they don't get it. The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take it. It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges and politicians really can't stand. So go make the biggest stink you can! It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while getting pelted with rocks from every angle. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
The following news story has nothing to do with "child
support," but everything to do with the caliber and ethics of the judges who typically administer these matters. Fathers in Pennsylvania who have to deal with any of the state's judges will want to be warned. These judges were taking big kickbacks from a juvenile boot camp operator to send children convicted of minor offenses to his boot camp. For their crimes, these judges apparently will get sentences of less than eight years. Compare their sentences with the 18+ year periods of paying "child support" that many fathers face as a result of the rampant anti-male bias (another form of corruption) that pervades family courts. This story is from the New York Times. However, another story on the same matter quotes the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania as appealing for people to step forward if they have information about "activity that seems wrong, illegal or inconsistent with the oath of office that judges take." (see http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427800493). What oath of office do judges in Pennsylvania take? Does it include promising to administer the law without any form of prejudice? If Pennsylvania resembles other states, the glass ceiling on paternal custody is still firmly in place. "Most often, children still end up living primarily with the mother; according to the most recent census, moms are the official primary residential parent after a divorce in 5 out of 6 cases, a number that hasn't changed much since the mid-'90s." (From a Newsweek article of Dec. 15, 2008, by Susanna Schrobsdorff) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania judges plead guilty to fraud in kickback scheme By Ian Urbina and Sean D. Hamill New York Times Posted: 02/12/2009 06:12:52 PM PST By Ian Urbina and Sean D. Hamill At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke. Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment. She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by. "I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare," Hillary, 17, said. "All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing." The answers became a bit clearer Thursday as the judge, Mark Ciavarella, and colleague Michael Conahan appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care. While prosecutors say Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled. "In my entire career, I've never heard of anything remotely approaching this," said Senior Judge Arthur Grim, who was appointed by the state Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention. The case has shocked Luzerne County, an area in northeastern Pennsylvania that has been battered by a loss of industrial jobs and the closing of most of its anthracite coal mines. It raised concerns about whether juveniles should be required to have counsel either before or during their appearances in court and whether juvenile courts should be open to the public or child advocates. If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are expected to be sentenced in the next several months. Attorneys for both men declined to comment. Since state law forbids retirement benefits to judges convicted of a felony while in office, the judges also would lose their pensions. With Conahan serving as president judge in control of the budget and Ciavarella overseeing the juvenile courts, they set the kickback scheme in motion in December 2002, authorities said. They shut down the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was in poor condition, officials said, and maintained that the county had no choice but to send juveniles to the newly built private detention centers. Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments to a company they control in Florida. Though he pleaded guilty to the charges Thursday, Ciavarella has denied sentencing juveniles who did not deserve it or sending them to the detention centers in a quid pro quo with the centers. For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was unusually harsh. He sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a state rate of 1 in 10. On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:52:33 +0100, "Dusty" wrote: "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the short hairs. As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're standing in front of them. Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges decision and move it up a notch. Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can. There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they don't get it. The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take it. It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges and politicians really can't stand. So go make the biggest stink you can! It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while getting pelted with rocks from every angle. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Divorce, the game anyone can play - even Grandma!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 09 10:37 AM |
Time Travel Role Play Game for Everyday Peacemakers | [email protected] | General | 0 | March 27th 07 11:03 PM |
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 8th 06 11:23 PM |
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 8th 06 10:08 PM |