Travesty of Justice

We always hear "Cooperate now, fight it out in court later" right? Well it turns out that in Louisiana? You can WIN against a town/city in COURT. And the town/city can just opt to not "budget" for payouts and dont legally have to pay. Court can do nothing about it. So, turns out in that state, you can WIN in court and the Government can just say "Never going to budget for that! Guess we win after all!". Maybe in Lousiana? It is time to stop "complying" and just fight it right then and there. Because cities can do as they please under these rules then decide whether or not they WANT to pay rulings against them.

 

I'm sure in any judgement that you win, in any court in any state, you are told to pay, but are not forced to pay. I believe you have to file another case to be able to seize assets and property, using the previous judgement as substantiation.

 

You miss the point. In Louisiana? The state Constitution says, for towns/cities/counties "If they don't budget to pay settlements they are not obligated to". Not "barring another ruling ordering it". The State Constitution actually says they can just NOT BUDGET and say "well too bad". If it was an individual? You can get a court order to collect and send the Sheriff to seize. Here? their "Law of the Land" for the state says judgements are only valid to collect if the locality DECIDES to budget. You can have 150 court orders and they can just say "not budgeted this year. Maybe someday......".

Also, no. Losing a lawsuit is an order to pay when you lose. You dont have to file another suit. It is a simple writ in most places. Not a new case. The other person does not get to present a "new defense". Most times? The party who does not pay is not even present. A Sheriff just shows up one day. So, no, not another case. You file for an order. The court sends an order to pay and if you refuse still? They send guys in to start taking stuff. Not summon you for a new trial on whether you pay. I collect on these pretty often for clients. And........ I am usually in court for them maybe an hour tops and have a court order to pay or be subject to seizure. Present to the Sheriff and hours later they have thing to auction to pay my client.

But, again, here? The court cant give that order? Because the cities? Under LA Constitution says they have a universal defense of "Not budgeted for" and that is it till they CHOOSE to budget.

 

I wasn't saying you needed another trial, just that you had to go back to court in order to have a judgement allowing you to actually collect what you were due.

 

And in this case it does not matter. Court order. Court pissed off order part 2. Under state law they can just decide to never "budget" it and that is it.

 

On Sex Offenders? What "Level"? Is it someone who has that because he was a teen? And so was the girl. And Mommy or Daddy got pissed and pressed charges?

I used to love the game if it was within NYS's two year "Romeo and Juliet" rule as a prosecutor. "She is under the age of consent!" "But he is within 2 years?" "Yes. But she is under!". "But within 2 years of his age?" "Yes......." "sorry, legal." "But it is against our morals." "Still LEGAL.". "Our faith.........." "Legal. Let me stop here and tell you. Unless you can tell me it is over 2 years or she is under the magic bottom line on the law. It will be legal. The law does not care about your morals, faith, wishes. Just about if his age is somewhere between 728 days younger and 728 days older than here. If it is even 729 days I can legally go. But if is it between 2 years younger and older than her. Legal. Under. The. Law.".

 

We used to have cut and dried "age of consent" laws (the age as set was ridiculous), then we got with the tour and came up with something sensible.
It basically depends upon the relationship between parties. If under 18 then it could be legal if both parties were within a certain age of eachother, and if there was not a "position of authority" if you wish, ie: parent, teacher, coach, boss, etc.