More Dumb Legislation from Arizona

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Navy1960, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    But onward, from burritos to one bad stomachache: House Bill 2664.

    Simply put, Dial's bill -- carried on behalf of Kaites' client, the Arizona Creditors Bar Association -- would lower the amount of evidence needed in order to collect on credit-card debts in certain circumstances.

    Dial, R-Ahwatukee Foothills, didn't return a call to talk about his bill or his birthday burritos. Kaites' spokesman, David Leibowitz, told me it's all about holding people accountable and holding down costs for those of us who pay our bills.

    "HB 2664 would do little more than close a loophole that allows credit-card users to run up debts and use the court system to escape without paying," he said. "It only applies when debtors run up a bill, fail to pay it and then fail to appear in court."


    Senate rebuffs efforts to take away freebies

    14th Amendment

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    More stupid legislation from our state, which Mr. Dial who by the way when it comes to being cozy with lobbyists knows no limits, and then tells those in District 20 how much of a reformer he is, pays no attention to the constitution when he sponsors stupid legislation like this. First of all this legislation will accomplish one thing, it will increase the number of Bankruptcys in this state by a large number, and not only that it will like all the other legislation coming from these so called legislators find itself in a courtroom costing the state millions to defend it. In the mean time HB2664 after having failed the Senate twice somehow magically passes the 3rd time, and is now going to Gov. Brewer to sign into Law.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2012
  2. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Thanks Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,615
    Whats the problem with a requirement to pay your bills?

    You havent provided enough info on why this is bad. Where is the violation to the constitution?
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    First there is nothing wrong with people paying their bills at all, what this bill does however is to change the "burden of poof" from those making any claim to the defendant. So for example, as I am a good at making a spreadsheet in Excel, and I can assert under this law that that is indeed enough to meet the requirements of the bill then it becomes the burden of whomever I choose to say otherwise. So for example, let's say a company were to file a claim, then it this bill allows for a counter-claim to be filed using the same standard claiming the bill was paid!. Further, this law runs counter to the 14th Amendment in that it seeks to deprive citizens of property without due process of law.

    The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

    Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994). (In some Federal Appellate Circuit Courts, such as the Second Circuit, the "some credible evidence" standard has been found constitutionally insufficient to protect liberty interests of the parties in controversy at CPS hearings)
     

Share This Page