Anyone who has ever dealt with a public entity is probably familiar with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A portion of the Illinois FOIA states, "The General Assembly hereby declares that it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that access by all persons to public records promotes the transparency and accountability of public bodies at all levels of government. It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act."
If there is a dispute with respect to a request made under the FOIA, the Attorney General's office, more specifically the Public Access Counselor (PAC), is charged with ruling on the dispute. Recently, I was reading a blog post about yet another decision the PAC made in favor of a requester and against the municipality. Since I receive the post via email, a related link at the bottom of the email caught my eye. It was entitled "FOIA Request for Attorney General Records Denied as Unduly Burdensome." The entire post is available at: http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2013/10/foia-request-for-attorney-general.html?m=1
The gist of the case was that the Attorney General received a FOIA request, denied the request, and then rubber stamped their own denial as appropriate. Anything about that seem strange? All I can think of is Lloyd telling Harry that you "can't triple stamp a double stamp." Dumb and Dumber may be horrendously stupid comedy, but their logic is now being cited as legal authority by our State Government.
To make it even worse, the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court agreed with the Attorney General with no mention of the conflict. Although the reasoning of the Courts was fairly sound reasoning, the blatant conflict of interest here is mind shattering.
Let's take this a step further. Connie Citizen files a FOIA request with the State of Illinois Redundancy Department of the State of Illinois. The Redundancy Department denies Connie's request, knowing that the disclosure of the requested records would be very damaging to the Redundancy Department if they were to be sued by Connie. The Attorney General then rubber stamps the denial. Isn't that the same Attorney General that would be representing the Redundancy Department if they were to be sued by Connie Citizen?
Seems to me that the language in the Act stating "accountability of public bodies at all levels of government" does not apply to the highest level of government at all. But, then again, if the State government had to operate with transparency, how could they continue to have such a stellar record of efficiency.
Want some real enlightenment? Take a look at the yearly salary of our illustrious Attorney General and the amount of money she has spent to convince the unsuspecting citizens that she knows what she is doing. Mind blowing stuff.
I am still anxiously awaiting a response from Ms. Madigan to a letter I sent her in March of this year. Maybe she will shed some light on this subject at the same time.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
I Am Obamacare
I am Obamacare. I am a thirty (30) year old, healthy male with no preexisting conditions. I have one healthy, dependent child. I am self-employed and able to provide for my family without any State or Federal entitlements. My monthly premium for healthcare insurance will increase 32% and my deductible will quadruple under Obamacare. I am Obamacare.
This legislation will cause industries to suffer. People will lose jobs or will have reduced work hours because of this legislation. This legislation will produce catastrophic consequences for healthcare providers. This legislation perpetuates the growing disincentive to be a productive member of American society.
I could go on, but I will not. I have many things to be thankful for in life, but Obamacare is not one of them. Not surprisingly, the government is not even fully equipped to implement this horrible legislation. (Implementation probably would have required more than the 10,000+ pages of regulations instituted by the administration.) However, when people actually see the outrageous negative impact this will have to those that provide for themselves, they will be none-too-happy.
At some point, those that work for a living are going to get very fed up with footing the bill for the "underprivileged." Obamacare is a socialistic program; the government playing Robin Hood, plain and simple. It was a good run America. Thanks for nothing President Obama.
This legislation will cause industries to suffer. People will lose jobs or will have reduced work hours because of this legislation. This legislation will produce catastrophic consequences for healthcare providers. This legislation perpetuates the growing disincentive to be a productive member of American society.
I could go on, but I will not. I have many things to be thankful for in life, but Obamacare is not one of them. Not surprisingly, the government is not even fully equipped to implement this horrible legislation. (Implementation probably would have required more than the 10,000+ pages of regulations instituted by the administration.) However, when people actually see the outrageous negative impact this will have to those that provide for themselves, they will be none-too-happy.
At some point, those that work for a living are going to get very fed up with footing the bill for the "underprivileged." Obamacare is a socialistic program; the government playing Robin Hood, plain and simple. It was a good run America. Thanks for nothing President Obama.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Permanent Shutdown
As we take on the second week of the federal government shutdown, I would like to take a moment to recognize how negatively my life has been affected without the federal government at work.
Wait. My life has not been affected whatsoever. Zip. Zero. Nada.
If the government shutdown has taught us anything, it is that the federal government is so absolutely worthless that their absence is no worse than their presence. Now that I think about it, their absence is probably better for the country, because they are not "working" and continuing to run the country into the ground.
Our current Congress does absolutely nothing but attempt to be re-elected. (This was the case for our President, but unless he succeeds in his run for World Dictator, he won't be running for office again anytime some. His presence is effectively useless, but I digress.)
These people spend so much time running campaigns, it is no wonder they cannot manage to accomplish anything else. The amount of money they spend doing it is astronomical. But, can you blame them? These politicians take home large paychecks, have Cadillac insurance policies, cushy retirement benefits, and God knows what other under-the-table perks.
This shutdown shows me that these overcompensated idiots are not even capable of intelligent discourse with people of differing opinions. Apparently, they are such mental midgets that they believe the "I'm taking my ball and going home" approach is an effective method of governing. For hundreds of years there have been differing opinions about how the government will operate. However, these people cannot engage in the give and take of negotiation to do simple tasks, like pass a budget. If these political leaders cannot do such simple tasks, then what business do they have "leading" our country. There isn't much leading going on in D.C., if you ask me.
I would like to think that my disgust with these worthless humans is shared by many and transcends party lines. As far as I am concerned, maybe these folks should just pack it up and go home. We'll take it from here.
Wait. My life has not been affected whatsoever. Zip. Zero. Nada.
If the government shutdown has taught us anything, it is that the federal government is so absolutely worthless that their absence is no worse than their presence. Now that I think about it, their absence is probably better for the country, because they are not "working" and continuing to run the country into the ground.
Our current Congress does absolutely nothing but attempt to be re-elected. (This was the case for our President, but unless he succeeds in his run for World Dictator, he won't be running for office again anytime some. His presence is effectively useless, but I digress.)
These people spend so much time running campaigns, it is no wonder they cannot manage to accomplish anything else. The amount of money they spend doing it is astronomical. But, can you blame them? These politicians take home large paychecks, have Cadillac insurance policies, cushy retirement benefits, and God knows what other under-the-table perks.
This shutdown shows me that these overcompensated idiots are not even capable of intelligent discourse with people of differing opinions. Apparently, they are such mental midgets that they believe the "I'm taking my ball and going home" approach is an effective method of governing. For hundreds of years there have been differing opinions about how the government will operate. However, these people cannot engage in the give and take of negotiation to do simple tasks, like pass a budget. If these political leaders cannot do such simple tasks, then what business do they have "leading" our country. There isn't much leading going on in D.C., if you ask me.
I would like to think that my disgust with these worthless humans is shared by many and transcends party lines. As far as I am concerned, maybe these folks should just pack it up and go home. We'll take it from here.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Sincerity
As I perused the news this morning, I came across a picture that reminded me of how good Americans used to have it. We used to have leaders in this country that truly cared about our citizens and the betterment of our society. We used to have leaders that did not get caught up in scandal after scandal. We used to have leaders that were genuinely good people. I sincerely doubt our current Narcissist and Chief would ever care enough about another human to do something like this:
 |
| Former US President George HW Bush shaved his head this week in solidarity with the young son of a member of his security detail who is suffering from leukemia. |
Friday, June 14, 2013
Like Mike
Michael Jordan has always been my favorite professional athlete. When he played basketball, it was an art form. Jordan worked hard his entire life. He became the greatest basketball player that ever lived and an icon around the world. Needless to say, he is a very rich human and a very recognizable figure.
Today, I read the following article in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-michael-jordan-dominicks-lawsuit-20130614,0,3036539.story
If you read this article and believe that Jordan is being greedy, you are flat wrong. What you are actually experiencing is jealousy toward someone that can legitimately make millions of dollars for the use of his name and brand image.
Maybe you should ask Hanes or Gatorade if Jordan ever allowed them to use his name or image out of the goodness of his heart. Of course not. That would be stupid.
(Side Note: It is probably not surprising that Judge Milton Shadur was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1980 by the waffler in chief himself, Jimmy Carter. From what I can tell, he currently brings in approximately $185,000 a year with full benefits and all the perks of a Federal lifetime appointment. I imagine his 23rd floor office is nothing to scoff at.)
Jordan has created a brand and an image that can flat out sell products. Gatorade had a full blown marketing campaign that stated "I wanna be like Mike." If Michael Jordan wore it, consumed it, or did it, the public wanted it.
If you ever need confirmation of the stupidity epidemic sweeping our nation, you can be sure to find the proof in the comment sections of online news articles. The underlying premise in many of these comments is "He is rich, he does not need more money." The logic is flawed.
Just because he worked hard his entire life and has created an image that is worth millions of dollars, it is irrelevant how much money he has in the bank. It is Jordan's image and likeness. If you want to use it to sell your products, pay the man his money. If you don't want to pay, don't use the image. It is simple.
So, I personally hope Jordan is awarded his five million. I hope he asked for punitive damages. I still hope to some day "be like Mike," but I would certainly wouldn't mind Judge Shadur's gig along the way.
Today, I read the following article in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-michael-jordan-dominicks-lawsuit-20130614,0,3036539.story
If you read this article and believe that Jordan is being greedy, you are flat wrong. What you are actually experiencing is jealousy toward someone that can legitimately make millions of dollars for the use of his name and brand image.
Maybe you should ask Hanes or Gatorade if Jordan ever allowed them to use his name or image out of the goodness of his heart. Of course not. That would be stupid.
(Side Note: It is probably not surprising that Judge Milton Shadur was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1980 by the waffler in chief himself, Jimmy Carter. From what I can tell, he currently brings in approximately $185,000 a year with full benefits and all the perks of a Federal lifetime appointment. I imagine his 23rd floor office is nothing to scoff at.)
Jordan has created a brand and an image that can flat out sell products. Gatorade had a full blown marketing campaign that stated "I wanna be like Mike." If Michael Jordan wore it, consumed it, or did it, the public wanted it.
If you ever need confirmation of the stupidity epidemic sweeping our nation, you can be sure to find the proof in the comment sections of online news articles. The underlying premise in many of these comments is "He is rich, he does not need more money." The logic is flawed.
Just because he worked hard his entire life and has created an image that is worth millions of dollars, it is irrelevant how much money he has in the bank. It is Jordan's image and likeness. If you want to use it to sell your products, pay the man his money. If you don't want to pay, don't use the image. It is simple.
So, I personally hope Jordan is awarded his five million. I hope he asked for punitive damages. I still hope to some day "be like Mike," but I would certainly wouldn't mind Judge Shadur's gig along the way.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Entitlement Does Not Follow Equality
May 1 has been declared, as in years past, to be "Law Day" by the American Bar Association. The theme this year, as outlined by the ABA, is "Realizing the Dream: Equality for All." The Dream being referenced by the theme this year is a reference to the "I Have a Dream" speech of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963. Dr. King continually urged equal treatment of all individuals under the law and fought to end discrimination.
Although I take issue with many of the activities of the ABA, reasonable minds can surely agree that people ought to all be treated equally under the law. However, I believe that many individuals in this current day and age confuse equality and inalienable rights with entitlement.
The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, as Americans, we are all free, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation, to pursue happiness. This right does not, in my opinion, entitle us to anything beyond that ability.
Warning: The remainder of this post will contain harsh realities that may offend the sensibilities of the bleeding-hearts. Consume at your own risk.
For me, I enjoy spending time with my family and friends, going to restaurants, playing golf, watching TV, traveling, etc. If I had my choice, those activities would consume all of my days. However, many of these activities cost money. I made choices in life and pursued a path that has allowed me to earn a comfortable living and partake in many of the life activities I enjoy. Through hard work, dedication, and commitment, the large majority of people in America can do the same.
That being said, there is not much on this Earth that makes me more angry than the thought of an able bodied welfare recipient sitting on their ass, taking bong rips, and playing video games. It is not necessarily their activity (or inactivity) that is so aggravating, but the ever-increasing attitude in this country that "I am entitled to this." WRONG.
You are entitled to life, not the life of the rich and famous. You are entitled to the liberty to pursue any life path you wish. If your life choice was to smoke meth, you are not entitled to a new iPhone. You are entitled to pursue happiness. If nice things make you happy, you are welcome to gain employment and purchase nice things. Further, you are even entitled to apply for work without fear of discrimination. However, if your qualifications for employment are terrible, you are not entitled to be hired.
This entitlement mentality is only perpetuated by our Federal and State Governments. Do you know that the government will tell you, to the day, when your unemployment benefits will expire? They should just write a letter:
"Dear Down-and-Out,
Your friendly government will take care of you until December 1, 2013. Please do not feel inclined to lift a finger until that time. Oh, I almost forgot, if you are unsuccessful in finding a job by that time, please let us know and we will extend your benefits."
Now, I am sure you are thinking "this guy is tough, there are people out there that legitimately need help." Trust me, I know this. I will tell you, without hesitation, that it is our duty as citizens to help those in need. However, I would much rather make that determination on my own and without government intervention. I have been handling my finances for quite a few years and it seems my budgeting and spending is far superior to that of the government.
Life can chew you up and spit you out. I suppose we could live in a socialist society and let the government dole out our monthly allowances and take care of our needs. But, what would be the reward to those that do persevere in the face of life challenges and succeed in their chosen life path? There would be none, because there would be no incentive to try. I think we, as a society, will suffer if we continue to remove incentives to actually pursuing happiness. Life is not fair. However, it should most certainly be unfair to everyone equally.
Although I take issue with many of the activities of the ABA, reasonable minds can surely agree that people ought to all be treated equally under the law. However, I believe that many individuals in this current day and age confuse equality and inalienable rights with entitlement.
The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, as Americans, we are all free, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation, to pursue happiness. This right does not, in my opinion, entitle us to anything beyond that ability.
Warning: The remainder of this post will contain harsh realities that may offend the sensibilities of the bleeding-hearts. Consume at your own risk.
For me, I enjoy spending time with my family and friends, going to restaurants, playing golf, watching TV, traveling, etc. If I had my choice, those activities would consume all of my days. However, many of these activities cost money. I made choices in life and pursued a path that has allowed me to earn a comfortable living and partake in many of the life activities I enjoy. Through hard work, dedication, and commitment, the large majority of people in America can do the same.
That being said, there is not much on this Earth that makes me more angry than the thought of an able bodied welfare recipient sitting on their ass, taking bong rips, and playing video games. It is not necessarily their activity (or inactivity) that is so aggravating, but the ever-increasing attitude in this country that "I am entitled to this." WRONG.
You are entitled to life, not the life of the rich and famous. You are entitled to the liberty to pursue any life path you wish. If your life choice was to smoke meth, you are not entitled to a new iPhone. You are entitled to pursue happiness. If nice things make you happy, you are welcome to gain employment and purchase nice things. Further, you are even entitled to apply for work without fear of discrimination. However, if your qualifications for employment are terrible, you are not entitled to be hired.
This entitlement mentality is only perpetuated by our Federal and State Governments. Do you know that the government will tell you, to the day, when your unemployment benefits will expire? They should just write a letter:
"Dear Down-and-Out,
Your friendly government will take care of you until December 1, 2013. Please do not feel inclined to lift a finger until that time. Oh, I almost forgot, if you are unsuccessful in finding a job by that time, please let us know and we will extend your benefits."
Now, I am sure you are thinking "this guy is tough, there are people out there that legitimately need help." Trust me, I know this. I will tell you, without hesitation, that it is our duty as citizens to help those in need. However, I would much rather make that determination on my own and without government intervention. I have been handling my finances for quite a few years and it seems my budgeting and spending is far superior to that of the government.
Life can chew you up and spit you out. I suppose we could live in a socialist society and let the government dole out our monthly allowances and take care of our needs. But, what would be the reward to those that do persevere in the face of life challenges and succeed in their chosen life path? There would be none, because there would be no incentive to try. I think we, as a society, will suffer if we continue to remove incentives to actually pursuing happiness. Life is not fair. However, it should most certainly be unfair to everyone equally.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Open Letter to Maggie Wilderotter
Dear Ms. Wilderotter,
I would like to share my most recent experience with your company, Frontier Communications. As CEO of Frontier Communications, I am certain you will be interested in the thoughts and concerns of one of your valued customers.
I receive my bills via email and recently received an email from your company. This email simply states that a bill is available and lists the total of this bill. I noticed, in my recent correspondence from your company, that my bill had increased by $6 from the previous month. As this seemed odd, I proceeded to your website to chat with a customer service representative.
The Customer service representative was most helpful. She informed me that all customers received notice of the increase on the previous month's bill. After I logged into my account, clicked on the previous month's bill, and scrolled down to page 4, I noticed the "Important Customer Information." That information was as follows:
"As one of our valued broadband customers, we are very
excited to report that over the last 24 months Frontier
has upgraded our broadband network to deliver greater
Internet speeds and capacity. This investment was made
to provide you with an improved customer experience.
We are also updating our broadband pricing plans to
offer multiple tiers of products and services designed to
respond to the differing needs of each and every
customer. As a result of these changes, we are
discontinuing older services and moving our customers to
one of our new service offerings. Please visit
www.frontier.com/FAQ or contact Customer Service at
888-638-5200 to discuss which of our current offers and
promotions will best meet your needs. Alternatively, if
we do not hear from you, effective with next month's bill
you will be moved to our Simply Broadband Max offering
that will continue to provide you with Frontier data
services, at one data service price (you will no longer see
additional charges for a modem fee or a high-speed
surcharge). The monthly cost for your new Simply
Broadband Max offering may result in an increase up to
$6.00. We look forward to continuing to meet all of your
communications needs."
It would strike me that there should have been a little more transparency with this change. Through no fault of my own, I apparently was not paying your company enough money. Now, this is a matter of opinion because I felt that the charge was not only sufficient, it was probably outrageously inflated. Anyway, my rate has apparently now increased and will continue to increase until I am paying you a satisfactory monthly fee. (Again, your opinion, not mine).
I suppose I will live in a perpetual state of uncertainty and just hope and pray that you do not decide that my monthly fee for internet should be one million dollars. I sure would not be able to afford that. I guess the point of my letter is, if you intend to increase my rates, maybe you could just send me an email and let me know? I think you should have my email address, after all you send my bill there every month. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I would like to share my most recent experience with your company, Frontier Communications. As CEO of Frontier Communications, I am certain you will be interested in the thoughts and concerns of one of your valued customers.
I receive my bills via email and recently received an email from your company. This email simply states that a bill is available and lists the total of this bill. I noticed, in my recent correspondence from your company, that my bill had increased by $6 from the previous month. As this seemed odd, I proceeded to your website to chat with a customer service representative.
The Customer service representative was most helpful. She informed me that all customers received notice of the increase on the previous month's bill. After I logged into my account, clicked on the previous month's bill, and scrolled down to page 4, I noticed the "Important Customer Information." That information was as follows:
"As one of our valued broadband customers, we are very
excited to report that over the last 24 months Frontier
has upgraded our broadband network to deliver greater
Internet speeds and capacity. This investment was made
to provide you with an improved customer experience.
We are also updating our broadband pricing plans to
offer multiple tiers of products and services designed to
respond to the differing needs of each and every
customer. As a result of these changes, we are
discontinuing older services and moving our customers to
one of our new service offerings. Please visit
www.frontier.com/FAQ or contact Customer Service at
888-638-5200 to discuss which of our current offers and
promotions will best meet your needs. Alternatively, if
we do not hear from you, effective with next month's bill
you will be moved to our Simply Broadband Max offering
that will continue to provide you with Frontier data
services, at one data service price (you will no longer see
additional charges for a modem fee or a high-speed
surcharge). The monthly cost for your new Simply
Broadband Max offering may result in an increase up to
$6.00. We look forward to continuing to meet all of your
communications needs."
It would strike me that there should have been a little more transparency with this change. Through no fault of my own, I apparently was not paying your company enough money. Now, this is a matter of opinion because I felt that the charge was not only sufficient, it was probably outrageously inflated. Anyway, my rate has apparently now increased and will continue to increase until I am paying you a satisfactory monthly fee. (Again, your opinion, not mine).
I suppose I will live in a perpetual state of uncertainty and just hope and pray that you do not decide that my monthly fee for internet should be one million dollars. I sure would not be able to afford that. I guess the point of my letter is, if you intend to increase my rates, maybe you could just send me an email and let me know? I think you should have my email address, after all you send my bill there every month. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Monday, March 4, 2013
State of Decline
To all who live in the State of Illinois, it comes as no surprise that our lawmakers spend a great deal of time on worthless legislation. It also comes as no surprise that we are a State run by mostly Democratic, mostly corrupt, Chicago politicians. Our fearless Attorney General is, in my opinion, no exception. In January of 2012 I read the following article in the State Journal Register online:
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1069934542/Legal-wrinkle-creates-debate-over-debtors-prisons-in-Illinois
The gist of the article was that Ms. Madigan was fairly clueless about how the system operated and wished to make it easier for debtors to avoid paying their bills. It must be a burden for Democrats to continually worry about how they can make life easier for those that make no effort to better their own situation. But, I digress. In response to this article, I penned the following letter to our brilliant A.G.:
Office of the Attorney General
Attn: Lisa Madigan
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
RE: “Debtor’s Prison”
Dear Ms. Madigan:
I read with interest the January 21, 2012 article in the State Journal Register entitled “Legal wrinkle creates debate over 'debtors' prisons' in Illinois.” I must say, I am somewhat perplexed.
The article quotes you as stating, “When you fail to show up for a court hearing, that’s when a judge finds you in contempt of court for not showing up and there is a warrant out for your arrest.” You were further quoted as saying, “That gives the lawyers the ability to say (debtors) aren’t being thrown into debtors’ prison, they’re being thrown into prison for contempt of court. To me, that’s disingenuous.”
How is this a disingenuous statement? As in any civil court proceeding, when orders of the Court are not followed, a finding of contempt with a jail sentence is a possibility. Are you insinuating that people who have not fulfilled their financial responsibilities should be exempt from Court Orders?
You make reference in the article to a “pay or show” motion. I have personally never heard of this particular motion in a civil proceeding. However, if a pleading is properly filed and served on a Defendant pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, do you not believe the Defendant should be required to appear in Court on the specified date and time? If a party to a civil suit does not appear after proper notification, should a body attachment warrant not issue?
I am never surprised to see a media outlet misconstrue facts or be uninformed. However, I find your blanket outrage at debt collection to be misguided. It seems that your outrage would be much more properly directed at falsification of affidavits of service and at Judges who set unfairly high bail amounts. Attorneys who follow the rules of civil procedure and play by the rules are not “utilizing taxpayer dollars to collect private debt,” but are zealously pursing civil legal remedies on behalf of their clients.
I further find your outrage to be hypocritical. It would seem that your office spends a large amount of time, money, and manpower pursuing the enforcement of child support payments. Would this not be a debt for which your office utilizes the civil courts in this State to collect? Fortunately for your office, you have many other avenues and punishments at your disposal to collect child support debts. It could be argued that some of these additional punishments for non-payment are even harsher than being arrested for failure to appear.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your statements and positions on this issue and pursue future endeavors in the General Assembly that are actually of benefit to the citizens of the State of Illinois. I anxiously await your response.
Very truly yours,
William B. Bates, Jr.
CC: Representative Rich Brauer
Senator Larry K. Bomke
As I write this blog post, I am still "anxiously" awaiting Ms. Madigan's response. I assume I can take the fact that our esteemed Governor Quinn signed legislation last July that effectuated some of the changes advocated by Ms. Madigan as a pretty good indication of the weight my opinions have. But, a stock response with a stamped signature would have been a nice collector's item.
I realize that a somewhat sarcastic and condescending letter to the A.G. is not likely to win me any popularity contests in that office. However, at some point, it is time for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our leaders, or it is time for new leaders. If we now live in a society where a person cannot be held accountable for their valid debts, I believe we have reached that point.
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1069934542/Legal-wrinkle-creates-debate-over-debtors-prisons-in-Illinois
The gist of the article was that Ms. Madigan was fairly clueless about how the system operated and wished to make it easier for debtors to avoid paying their bills. It must be a burden for Democrats to continually worry about how they can make life easier for those that make no effort to better their own situation. But, I digress. In response to this article, I penned the following letter to our brilliant A.G.:
Office of the Attorney General
Attn: Lisa Madigan
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
RE: “Debtor’s Prison”
Dear Ms. Madigan:
I read with interest the January 21, 2012 article in the State Journal Register entitled “Legal wrinkle creates debate over 'debtors' prisons' in Illinois.” I must say, I am somewhat perplexed.
The article quotes you as stating, “When you fail to show up for a court hearing, that’s when a judge finds you in contempt of court for not showing up and there is a warrant out for your arrest.” You were further quoted as saying, “That gives the lawyers the ability to say (debtors) aren’t being thrown into debtors’ prison, they’re being thrown into prison for contempt of court. To me, that’s disingenuous.”
How is this a disingenuous statement? As in any civil court proceeding, when orders of the Court are not followed, a finding of contempt with a jail sentence is a possibility. Are you insinuating that people who have not fulfilled their financial responsibilities should be exempt from Court Orders?
You make reference in the article to a “pay or show” motion. I have personally never heard of this particular motion in a civil proceeding. However, if a pleading is properly filed and served on a Defendant pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, do you not believe the Defendant should be required to appear in Court on the specified date and time? If a party to a civil suit does not appear after proper notification, should a body attachment warrant not issue?
I am never surprised to see a media outlet misconstrue facts or be uninformed. However, I find your blanket outrage at debt collection to be misguided. It seems that your outrage would be much more properly directed at falsification of affidavits of service and at Judges who set unfairly high bail amounts. Attorneys who follow the rules of civil procedure and play by the rules are not “utilizing taxpayer dollars to collect private debt,” but are zealously pursing civil legal remedies on behalf of their clients.
I further find your outrage to be hypocritical. It would seem that your office spends a large amount of time, money, and manpower pursuing the enforcement of child support payments. Would this not be a debt for which your office utilizes the civil courts in this State to collect? Fortunately for your office, you have many other avenues and punishments at your disposal to collect child support debts. It could be argued that some of these additional punishments for non-payment are even harsher than being arrested for failure to appear.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your statements and positions on this issue and pursue future endeavors in the General Assembly that are actually of benefit to the citizens of the State of Illinois. I anxiously await your response.
Very truly yours,
William B. Bates, Jr.
CC: Representative Rich Brauer
Senator Larry K. Bomke
As I write this blog post, I am still "anxiously" awaiting Ms. Madigan's response. I assume I can take the fact that our esteemed Governor Quinn signed legislation last July that effectuated some of the changes advocated by Ms. Madigan as a pretty good indication of the weight my opinions have. But, a stock response with a stamped signature would have been a nice collector's item.
I realize that a somewhat sarcastic and condescending letter to the A.G. is not likely to win me any popularity contests in that office. However, at some point, it is time for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our leaders, or it is time for new leaders. If we now live in a society where a person cannot be held accountable for their valid debts, I believe we have reached that point.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Fiscal Cliff Averted?
Toward the end of 2012, you could not turn on your television without hearing about the so called "Fiscal Cliff." As with all things, the media beat this dead horse to an everliving pulp. Anyone that works with estate planning issues was curious what Congress would do about the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amounts. Congress certainly kept us guessing right up until the new year.
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)