Judicial duties and ethics quandry

[Isis1]

I disagree! Why in Gods name do you think they have statutes of limitations? She was a minor when the offense occurred which made them her parents responsibility.

statute of limitations for WHAT??? that is the question. there is no statute of limitations for collecting on a crime. only to be charged with a crime. pay attention.

and just because she was a minor, does NOT mean her parents were required to serve the sentence. it was your friend that commited the crime. not her parents. whose criminal record do you think this is on????

 

[tranquility]

Judges are not supposed to do any of this stuff. He is violating the SCRules of professional conduct.

How so? Please list the specific rule and the specific action which violated it.

The SOL is for charging, not collecting. You will have to look at the judgment laws for how long they have.

 

[xylene]

You have got your man panties in a big old bunch over a telephone call.

 

[YuvbinDuped]

How so? Please list the specific rule and the specific action which violated it.


Judges are supposed to be unbiased and impartial. This particular judge has become an advocate for the state in personally digging up these old cases and rejuvinating them. That is a conflict of interest on his part. I will look up the SCRules and find where it states that. In order to be collecting one must be charged. It is seven years in Wisconsin for unpaid debts to be relinquished.

The SOL is for charging, not collecting. You will have to look at the judgment laws for how long they have.

I will do so, thank you! Please read the article at the link I re-submitted at one of the links provided to understand what this guy is doing. I think he is acting as a prosecutor rather than a judge. Doesn't it appear that way to you?

 

[tranquility]

The people he is contacting have already been found guilty. I don't get your analogy.

Since collection is a court process, how can collection be illegal, unethical or wrong?

 

[YuvbinDuped]

The people he is contacting have already been found guilty. I don't get your analogy.

If there was a judgement against a minor it was the parents responsibility to take care of it. That said there is a statute of limitations on payments of judgements of 7 years. That time has long since elapsed. This judge has taken it upon himself to dig up old tickets and resucitate them. It is outside the purviews of the Judiciary to do so as this would make him an advocate for the state. Since a judge takes an oath to be unbiased and impartial this would be a conflict of interest would it not?

Since collection is a court process, how can collection be illegal, unethical or wrong?

There are time limits on these things. I'm not even sure she was found guilty as you assume. This judge called my freiend out of the blue and threatened her with warrants and jail time for activities that occurred when she was 15. II don't find his "Rambo like" efforts (as he himself called them)to be in line with impartiality when this is taking a clear side, nor am I certain he as a judge can dig up the records of minors who have long since become adults and use that aginst them. That is why I am here.

 

[YuvbinDuped]

statute of limitations for WHAT??? that is the question. there is no statute of limitations for collecting on a crime. only to be charged with a crime. pay attention.

You should pay attention. I don't know if she was charged nor does she. That should be moot anyway given the time which has elapsed. Are you a lawyer?

and just because she was a minor, does NOT mean her parents were required to serve the sentence. it was your friend that commited the crime. not her parents. whose criminal record do you think this is on????

I didn't say they were required to serve the sentence but they are somewhat responsible for her actions and if pressed, (which they obviously) were not, would have paid the fine rather than see their daughter sit in the huskow. The City dropped the ball a long time ago and should not be able to stroll along over ten years later and revive it.

 

[tranquility]

While I don't vouch for the info, at:
Wisconsin Statute of Limitations

STATE: WISCONSIN

Interest Rate

Legal: 5%
Judgment: 12%

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (IN YEARS)

Open Account: 6
Written Contract: 6
Domestic Judgment: 20
Foreign Judgment: 20

BAD CHECK LAWS (CIVIL PENALTY)
Amount of check plus actual damages + exemplary damages up to 3x value of check, limited to $500.

GENERAL GARNISHMENT EXEMPTIONS
80% of net pay.

Looks like 20 years. Has it been twenty years since the conviction? (Please spare us your theory that maybe your friend has not been convicted. If it has not been properly dealt with, there has been a conviction.)

Info edit:
See, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/893/IV/40

 

[LdiJ]

Here is the link, the actual story is a tad bit different than it comes across here.

New Delavan judge, clerk working to restore court -- GazetteXtra

 

[YuvbinDuped]

Here is the link, the actual story is a tad bit different than it comes across here.

New Delavan judge, clerk working to restore court -- GazetteXtra

Howso? Please point that out.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I didn't say they were required to serve the sentence but they are somewhat responsible for her actions and if pressed, (which they obviously) were not, would have paid the fine rather than see their daughter sit in the huskow. The City dropped the ball a long time ago and should not be able to stroll along over ten years later and revive it.

Then park your testosterone. The law allows them to collect it. If her parents were so willing, they should pony up. If not, she should. Welcome to the world of your history catching up with you.

 

[YuvbinDuped]

Then park your testosterone. The law allows them to collect it. If her parents were so willing, they should pony up. If not, she should. Welcome to the world of your history catching up with you.

There is a ten year statute of limitations on judgements in wisconsin. How is this any different?
Heres a link:

http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/SOL-by-State.html#50

 

[Mass_Shyster]

From 2011 Wisconsin Code Chapter 895. Damages, liability, and miscellaneous provisions regarding actions in courts.
895.035 Parental liability for acts of minor child.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/895/895.035.html

895.035(2)(b)1.
1. The parent or parents with custody of their minor child are jointly and severally liable with the child for the damages imposed under s. 943.51 for their child's violation of s. 943.50.

Joint and several liability means they can collect from either party. If parents are dead, child is stuck with the bill.

Since the judge has the power to throw the truant into jail, I suggest the truant start making arrangements to pay the balance due.

 

[YuvbinDuped]

From 2011 Wisconsin Code Chapter 895. Damages, liability, and miscellaneous provisions regarding actions in courts.
895.035 Parental liability for acts of minor child.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/895/895.035.html

895.035(2)(b)1.
1. The parent or parents with custody of their minor child are jointly and severally liable with the child for the damages imposed under s. 943.51 for their child's violation of s. 943.50.

Joint and several liability means they can collect from either party. If parents are dead, child is stuck with the bill.

Since the judge has the power to throw the truant into jail, I suggest the truant start making arrangements to pay the balance due.

Thank you for your time. I still think that after ten years this is more than just a little bit odd and that the judge is acting as a prosecutor in his actions. Seems like a grey area here.

 

[tranquility]

The OP likes to ignore inconvenient facts.

There is a ten year statute of limitations on judgements in wisconsin. How is this any different?
Heres a link:

Debt collection statute of limitations listed by state

After I posted a DIRECT LINK TO THE LAW on Wisconsin's web site, he gets something different from a private place. I don't know who is right, because SOL is a lot harder than people think, but I'd go with: (The exceptions listed have to do with foreclosures.)

893.40  Action on judgment or decree; court of record. Except as provided in ss. 846.04 (2) and (3) and 893.415, action upon a judgment or decree of a court of record of any state or of the United States shall be commenced within 20 years after the judgment or decree is entered or be barred.
History: 1979 c. 323; 1997 a. 27; 2003 a. 287.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section has been created to combine the provisions of repealed ss. 893.16 (1) and 893.18 (1). A substantive change from prior law results as the time period for an action upon a judgment of a court of record sitting without this state is increased from 10 years to 20 years and runs from the time of entry of a judgment. The separate statute of limitations for an action upon a sealed instrument is repealed as unnecessary. [Bill 326-A]
The defendant was prejudiced by an unreasonable 16-year delay in bringing suit; thus laches barred suit even though the applicable limitation period did not. Schafer v. Wegner, 78 Wis. 2d 127, 254 N.W.2d 193 (1977).
A request by the state or an offender to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment to reflect accurately an oral pronouncement of sentence is not an "action upon a judgment" under this section. State v. Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, 98-2263.
This section clearly and unambiguously specifies that the date when a cause of action to collect past-due child support payments begins to run is the date when a judgment ordering payments is entered. State v. Hamilton, 2003 WI 50, 261 Wis. 2d 458, 661 N.W.2d 832, 01-1014.