Does a Federal judgment have to be domesticated in state Court?

[GrapesofWath]

I want to enforce a federal judgment out of state but still within the same circuit area as the federal court that I have the judgment in.

What is required to do this?

Chat GPT said:
Federal lawsuits do not need to be "domesticated" out of state in the same way that foreign judgments do. When you file a lawsuit in federal court, it is a federal matter and is subject to federal jurisdiction. Federal court judgments are generally enforceable across all states without the need for domestication.

Yet the company said they don't recognize the federal court because its out of state.

What is the correct law in regards to federal judgment being enforced out of state?

Thanks

 

[quincy]

I want to enforce a federal judgment out of state but still within the same circuit area as the federal court that I have the judgment in.

What is required to do this?

Chat GPT said:
Federal lawsuits do not need to be "domesticated" out of state in the same way that foreign judgments do. When you file a lawsuit in federal court, it is a federal matter and is subject to federal jurisdiction. Federal court judgments are generally enforceable across all states without the need for domestication.

Yet the company said they don't recognize the federal court because its out of state.

What is the correct law in regards to federal judgment being enforced out of state?

Thanks

You can file a certified copy of the final federal judgment in any other district. This is not called “domesticating” the judgment but rather “registering” the judgment.

Here is a link to your related thread, so others have the background information:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/partial-federal-judgment-used-to-collect-in-state-court-judgment-establishing-company-links-for-collection.663589/

 

[quincy]

... What is the correct law in regards to federal judgment being enforced out of state?

28 USC 1963
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1963

Utah Code Ann §78B-5-302
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter5/78B-5-S302.html

 

[Taxing Matters]

And to add to qunicy's post, you register that judgment in the district(s) where the judgment debtor has property or income that may be seized/garnished/levied to collect your judgment. The sooner you register it, the better, since registration of the judgement will perfect it by giving notice to the public of the judgment. If it isn't registered, another creditor could get in line ahead of you in the race to collect, which will reduce your options for collecting the judgment.

 

[zddoodah]

Has ChatGPT ever been right about anything? What you quoted isn't necessarily "wrong," but it certainly wasn't helpful.

I suggest googling "how to enforce federal judgment in another state." Then read search results that have been published by actual attorneys.

In short, you have to register the judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Whatever District of State X in the federal district where you want to do the enforcing. You then have to follow the judgment collection laws of the state where you've registered the judgment.

 

[quincy]

Has ChatGPT ever been right about anything? What you quoted isn't necessarily "wrong," but it certainly wasn't helpful.

I suggest googling "how to enforce federal judgment in another state." Then read search results that have been published by actual attorneys.

In short, you have to register the judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Whatever District of State X in the federal district where you want to do the enforcing. You then have to follow the judgment collection laws of the state where you've registered the judgment.

ChatGPT is less helpful than Wikipedia because the sources of the material published is often unknown. Fact-checking for accuracy is important. ChatGPT also has been found to infringe on the copyrights of others.

GrapesofWath, you will still need to locate your judgment-debtor’s assets. Registering the judgment is just the first step in trying to collect on your judgment.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Has ChatGPT ever been right about anything?

Obviously it does get some things right or companies wouldn't be knocking themselves out looking to incorporate it into their operations. In my limited experience using it, it does pretty well on basic undisputed facts, like how many feet are in a mile. But if you ask it to give an answer that requires any kind of "thinking" or on a controversial matter, the results may or may not be decent. I've never seen what I thought was stellar reply from it on any of those kinds of more demanding questions. I appreciate that you likely already know all this, but perhaps it may help others who read it. Too many people just accept what a computer spits out as being accurate and don't bother to question whether it's actually right. They haven't heard the old computer programmer slogan "garbage in, garbage out" (aka GIGO).

 

[quincy]

Obviously it does get some things right or companies wouldn't be knocking themselves out looking to incorporate it into their operations. In my limited experience using it, it does pretty well on basic undisputed facts, like how many feet are in a mile. But if you ask it to give an answer that requires any kind of "thinking" or on a controversial matter, the results may or may not be decent. I've never seen what I thought was stellar reply from it on any of those kinds of more demanding questions. I appreciate that you likely already know all this, but perhaps it may help others who read it. Too many people just accept what a computer spits out as being accurate and don't bother to question whether it's actually right. They haven't heard the old computer programmer slogan "garbage in, garbage out" (aka GIGO).

Teachers are some of those who regularly see the garbage spewed by ChatGPT. It was difficult enough for teachers to constantly check students’ papers for erroneous information when it was copied from the pages of Wikipedia. ChatGPT presents new challenges.

 

[zddoodah]

Too many people just accept what a computer spits out as being accurate and don't bother to question whether it's actually right.

Amen. Even worse, too many people don't CARE whether the information they obtain and turn around and disseminate is accurate.

 

[quincy]

Amen. Even worse, too many people don't CARE whether the information they obtain and turn around and disseminate is accurate.

Some people actually believe that what they are disseminating is accurate because they trust the sources of the information. It is less a matter of not caring whether the information is true or false and more a matter of actually believing their major sources of information would not lie.

There have been numerous studies that show people can replace what they might have previously accepted as fact (perhaps even from having personally witnessed an event) with false facts, if the falsehoods are repeated often enough. They start to doubt their own eyes and ears (and brains) and start believing that others they trust must know better than they.

Trying to fight misinformation has become a real media nightmare for those in the media who still value facts and truth. The truth is getting buried in the mudslide of lies and it is increasingly difficult to dig it out.

 

[GrapesofWath]

28 USC 1963
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1963

Utah Code Ann §78B-5-302
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter5/78B-5-S302.html

Obviously it does get some things right or companies wouldn't be knocking themselves out looking to incorporate it into their operations. In my limited experience using it, it does pretty well on basic undisputed facts, like how many feet are in a mile. But if you ask it to give an answer that requires any kind of "thinking" or on a controversial matter, the results may or may not be decent. I've never seen what I thought was stellar reply from it on any of those kinds of more demanding questions. I appreciate that you likely already know all this, but perhaps it may help others who read it. Too many people just accept what a computer spits out as being accurate and don't bother to question whether it's actually right. They haven't heard the old computer programmer slogan "garbage in, garbage out" (aka GIGO).

There was a lawyer who blindly trusted CHATGPT to write a legal complaint and file it with the court. It got so much stuff wrong that the judge sanctioned the lawyer for incompetence. It used citation for cases that did not even exist. I think the creators call it " Hallucination" when chat GPT will create make up something that does not exist. However, it will defend the hallucination vigorously and say and insist that it is incapable of hallucinate because its not human.

In the above example, the lawyer asked CHATGPT if it was sure about those citation or if it made it up and the AI vigorously defended the wrong information. I have heard CHAT GPT getting some basic math wrong too.

I don't think its ready to be handed over the nuclear launch codes just yet.

 

[quincy]

There was a lawyer who blindly trusted CHATGPT to write a legal complaint and file it with the court. It got so much stuff wrong that the judge sanctioned the lawyer for incompetence. It used citation for cases that did not even exist. I think the creators call it " Hallucination" when chat GPT will create make up something that does not exist. However, it will defend the hallucination vigorously and say and insist that it is incapable of hallucinate because its not human.

In the above example, the lawyer asked CHATGPT if it was sure about those citation or if it made it up and the AI vigorously defended the wrong information. I have heard CHAT GPT getting some basic math wrong too.

I don't think its ready to be handed over the nuclear launch codes just yet.

Two New York lawyers were sanctioned by the judge, with one of the lawyers saying he never thought that ChatGPT could just make up cases. Although the fine ($5000 split between the two) was not that much, their embarrassment no doubt will live on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/06/22/judge-fines-two-lawyers-for-using-fake-cases-from-chatgpt/amp/

 

[GrapesofWath]

Amen. Even worse, too many people don't CARE whether the information they obtain and turn around and disseminate is accurate.

Yes, and some people have even died because of this inaccurate information or had their accounts banned for disseminating correct information because the AI either made up incorrect information or relied on some garbage article.
Also, many offshore customer service centers will rely on AI as if its the word of God and can't be looked into or challenged. One of them even said the computer is his BOSS and no human is able to go against what the computer said.

It looks like the SCIFI robot/computers taking over and killing humans will be true but not in the way people thought of it with terminators but more like dumb people relying 100% on hallucinations from AI and self driving cars crashing into people.

 

[quincy]

Yes, and some people have even died because of this inaccurate information or had their accounts banned for disseminating correct information because the AI either made up incorrect information or relied on some garbage article.
Also, many offshore customer service centers will rely on AI as if its the word of God and can't be looked into or challenged. One of them even said the computer is his BOSS and no human is able to go against what the computer said.

It looks like the SCIFI robot/computers taking over and killing humans will be true but not in the way people thought of it with terminators but more like dumb people relying 100% on hallucinations from AI and self driving cars crashing into people.

Governments have recognized, and are working on protections against, the various and assorted problems being exposed by AI.

Good luck collecting on your judgments.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Governments have recognized, and are working on protections against, the various and assorted problems being exposed by AI.

While that's true, the wheels of government turn slowly and in most cases the government lags behind technology, sometimes by many years. That lag time between the technology and the laws to restrain the uses of them gives bad actors a window to commit their crimes. People have to keep up with what is going on with technology and take steps themselves to guard against problems, at least to the extend there is something they can do. Unfortunately some of the elderly and people who have mental impairments are less able to do that, which is why so many frauds target those vulnerable populations. I get angry every time a potential vulnerable client comes into the law firm with stories of frauds that have scammed them. I don't typically litigate those, other attorneys in the firm do that, but I do assist when necessary and provide the tax advice on what deductions or credits may be avaiable to the client as a result of the fraud. People defrauding these vulnerable populations deserve more punishment than they typically receive. IMO.