User talk:Political hack

Get off this Tom DeLay thing and/or learn how to write. Thanks. --Trypa Party 04:58, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- What Wikipedia is not
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Gazpacho 05:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom DeLay edits

Please stop creating these articles and making highly biased edits immediately. It will not be tolerated if you continue, and you may be reported for vandalism, possibly incuring a ban. If you require clarification of Wikipedia's policies, ask or visit the appropriate pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). If you have any contructive, objective edits to make about Tom DeLay, then make them only in Tom DeLay, do not create new articles-they will be deleted, as will very biased edits. Deus Ex 00:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 This was the first major overhaul of federal bankruptcy law in many years.

Under the old bankruptcy law, a personal bankruptcy attorney could not be held financially responsible for his clients mendacity. Under the new bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy attorney is responsible for his client's lies to the Court about his assets and the bankruptcy attorney and his insurance carrier can be held responsible by the Bankruptcy Court.

The result is that personal bankruptcy attorneys (this does not apply to corporate bankruptcy attorneys) are likely to flee the personal bankruptcy field when the new law takes effect. Their insurance companies will not offer the sort of coverage that they would need to continue to practice.

So when consumers need to file personal bankruptcy under the new law, they will be unlikely to find a bankruptcy attorney to represent them. Consumers will have to file pro se: such consumers will be likely to fail due to the complexity of the law.

The bottom line is that the field of personal bankruptcy law as a practice area of law will cease to exist when the new bankruptcy law takes effect, and consumers will be unable to secure legal counsel and so consumers will lose what legal protections counsel now affords them.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_bankruptcy_law"

I'm afraid the reason this is nominated for deletion is that is a lot doesn't make sense. You need to specify properly the references you make, e.g. "Under the old bankruptcy law"-you need to say a named bankruptcy law and sentences like " In New York city fighting in the street, made a law get passed that the new york city most keep your things safe and you can get your thing back if you pay" simply don't make sense. The new version of the article you posted above is better though. However, there is alread an article that deals with your topic: Bankruptcy#Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_.26_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_2005 Deus Ex 09:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

work on

Under the new bankruptcy law about one half million Americans will be forest to pay for years, decades or for life they will be held in servitude as chattel they will be completely subservient to a dominating influence of the company that holds the loan. Thier loan will be put on the maket for sale for profit. The people will be forced to work harder. People who fail to go to court will have a arrest warrant made out in thier name and people who refuse to pay. They will be subject to fines and or jail. About fifty thousand Americans will punished yearly by a fine and or about three thousand Americans every year will go to jail under the new bankruptcy law. For some people this will be a third strike they will be put in jail for life.

Federal judges found redistricting legal they wrote in there opinion that computers used, made redistricting for political partisan advantage easier. After a hard-fought campaign in 2002, now being investigated for Tom DeLay's use of corporate fundraising, the Republicans won a majority in the Texas Legislature. Swiftly, they opened up an mid-decade redistricting plan, which was accused of favoring Republicans by using computers to gerrymander the district lines. Spliting cities and fractures traditional communities. Helen Giddings added that redistricting is the most partisan issue facing the State Legislature. Subject to constitutional requirements established by case law, and in some states to review by the United States Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans drawing districts to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities, the government of each state draws the boundaries for the House districts within the state's borders. While Federal law and court decisions prohibit gerrymandering districts from being drawn to reduce the voting power of protected groups such as ethnic minorities, it is perfectly legal to draw districts to favor one political party or another. Many analysts have argued that sophisticated gerrymandering computer technology plus the fundraising advantages incumbents possess have resulted in a situation where very few of the seats in the House are actually competitive. In 2002, a redistricting year, 356 House races were decided by more than 20 percent, another 41 were decided by 10 to 20 percent, only 38 were decided by less than 10 percent. Of close races, nearly all involved an open seat or a seat whose incumbent had only served one or two terms.

In 2004, nine incumbent Congressmen were defeated for reelection, two in primary races and seven in the general election. However, both of the primary losers, and four of those who lost in the general, were defeated after an unusual mid-decade redistricting warrant controversy in Texas. In only twelve other House contests with an incumbent was the election decided by less than 10 percent.

Even though only a few incumbents were defeated in 2004, the combination of retirements and resignations to run for other offices caused a nearly 10 percent turnover between the 108th and 109th Congresses. This level of turnover is common and exceeds the percentage of turnover in the U.S. Senate. However, of the vacant seats, only three changed party control.

Prison population affected by new bankruptcy law

Prison population affected by new bankruptcy law Under the new bankruptcy law about one half million Americans will be forced to pay for years, they will be held in servitude. Completely subservient to a dominating influence of the company that holds the loan. Thier loan will be put on the maket for sale for profit. The people will be forced to work harder. People who fail to go to court will have a arrest warrant made out in thier name and people who refuse to pay. They will be subject to fines and or jail. About fifty thousand Americans will punished yearly by a fine and or about three thousand Americans every year will go to jail under the new bankruptcy law. For some people this will be a third strike they will be put in jail for life.Political hack 9 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

This is a great place to put this. However, as this is your personal POV, please keep this out of actual bankruptcy related articles. Thanks.--Gunmetal 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bankruptcy fraud, is a federal crime that can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of the goods or services for some people this will be a third strike they will be put in jail for life. Political hack 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy fraud, is a federal felony that can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of the goods or services for some people this is can be a third strike they can be put in jail for life. The new bankruptcy law was purchased-with-creditor money, with massive quantities of dollars. Title 28 is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the Federal Judicial System.

It is divided into 6 parts:

I - Organization of Courts
II Department of Justice
III Court Officers and Employees
IV Juristiction and Venue
V Procedure
VI Particular Proceedings

DeLay also championed the controversial Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Opponents of the law have noted that the credit card industry spent millions of dollars lobbying in support of the act. The Green party strongly resisted the bill because the government would become a bill collector for private companies like Sears or Diversified Collections Services. Failure to pay the government can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of goods and services or fraud, for people with two strikes this can lead to a third strike.

Bankruptcy law

If you want to contribute to the subject of bankruptcy law, and you have meaningful edits to make, please edit the existing articles such as Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Code, and Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. It is not helpful to continue to create new articles with essentially the same text under different titles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a game of hide-and-go-seek! --Russ Blau (talk) 16:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

the Justice Department can only give case by case bankruptcy relif for harecan katena vitemes

Justice Department can only ofer case by case bankruptcy relif for harecan katena vitemes

case by case bankruptcy relif for harecan katena vitemes the Justice Department can only ofer

2nd strike requires 80 percent of 5 year sentence for bankruptcies fraud be served in prison. Political hack 16:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two opinion of Judge Alito in bankruptcy case of doctor

What on earth is supposed this supposed to be? I can't tell. Morwen - Talk 10:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two opinion of Judge Alito in bankruptcy case of doctor

Judge Alito is being harsh on bankrupted families

Judge Alito opinion on a bankrupted families. Helped reverse a lower court rulings that had found it, unconscionable to divide bankrupted famlies if it is the only way to get a mother to pay up for her student loan.

That was given by the bankruptcy courts and civil courts.

The bankruptcy courts and civil courts were concerned, by a 1000% penalty and interest charges, (congress voted against a cap) resulting in $400,000 debt, well beyond the ability for a doctor to pay was unconscionable.

The bankruptcy courts and civil courts rulings found it "unconscionable" to force a wife to leave her husband, and separate the father from his children.

For the purpose of compelling a out of state medical residency that would make Dr Matthews close her medical practise in Pennsylvania, vacating her home and taking her children with her.

Writing the opinion for the Third Circuit court Judge Samuel Alito wrote about changing the interpretation of the word "unconscionable", that was guided by the law.

A Third Circuit court ruling is attempting to motivate Dr Matthews to go to South Dakota medical residency.

By ordering the reinstatement of the entire $400,000 debt regardless of the ability to pay, knowingly trying to separate the doctor from her husband, close her medical practise, evicting her from her home and separating the father from his children.

Judge Alito was being guided by a dictionary to define the law and a philosophy of holding a person to a hire standard for owing taxpayers (the government), regardless of the ability to pay.

The ruling will, equally benefit the credit industry by sustaining unlimited interest charges and, penaltys regardless the ability to pay, and residency student loan contracts, well beyond the ability for a graduate to pay for their freedom.

Article omits key facts

This article makes Alito sound like a heartless enforcer of creditor rights. Heartless enforcer of the rights of poor and rural Americans to decent medical care is more like it. The article fails to note that the debt the victimized doctor incurred was for reneging on her commitment to the U.S. government to work in a medically underserved area. The doctor was lent $46,726.00 to pay for her medical education. In exchange, she agreed to work in a medically underserved area for 3 years. She wanted to work in Pennsylvania, but she wasn't needed there - the government needed her in South Dakota. She refused to go, and so, per the statute in question, was required to pay 3 times the amount of the loan back with interest. By the time judgment was entered the amount had ballooned up to over $400,000. Still, the government was still willing to let her simply serve her 3 years in a medically underserved area. The doctor claimed it was "unconscionable" to require her to go and work in South Dakota for 3 years because her husband worked in Pennsylvania and so they would be separated. Judge Alito stated that " An option is not "unconscionable" simply because it may be disruptive, unpleasant, undesirable, or painful. Instead, to be "unconscionable" an option must be "shockingly unfair, harsh, or unjust" or "outrageous," and the facts cited by the bankruptcy court and by Dr. Matthews do not show that a temporary relocation to satisfy her service obligation would rise to this level. These facts show little more than that Dr. Matthews and her family would experience some of the ordinary difficulties of relocation, and we do not believe that the ordinary difficulties of relocation can be regarded as "unconscionable." Each year many Americans must uproot their families and move because they are transferred by their employers or because they cannot find satisfactory work where they currently live." Alito also rejected the claim it would be "unconscionable" to require the doctor's family to lower its lifestyle to pay off her debt, stating that "Average taxpayers subsidize the medical education of NHSC scholarship recipients. Requiring such recipients who flout their service commitments to live like average taxpayers is not "unconscionable." In short, if this decision shows an ideological point of view at all, it is favoring rights of rural Americans to quality health care over the life styles of wealthy (or at least well to do) physicians. None of this comes through from the article however, which simply makes Alito sound like a debtor-basher.

External links

Category:United States bankruptcy law]] Category:United States federal legislation]]

Category:United States]] Category:North America]] Category:health]] Category:Education]]

Painful is not unconscionable

Judge Alito stated that " An option is not "unconscionable" simply because it may be disruptive, unpleasant, undesirable, or painful.

Judge Alito opinion on a bankrupted families. Helped reverse a lower court rulings that had found it, unconscionable to divide bankrupted famlies if it is the only way to get a mother to pay up for her student loan. For the purpose of compelling a out of state medical residency that would make Dr Matthews close her medical practise in Pennsylvania, vacating her home and taking her children with her.

The bankruptcy courts and civil courts were concerned, by a 1000% penalty and interest charges, (congress voted against a cap) resulting in $400,000 debt, well beyond the ability for a doctor to pay was unconscionable. The doctor claimed it was "unconscionable" to require her to go and work in South Dakota for 3 years because her husband worked in Pennsylvania and so they would be separated.

The debt the victimized doctor incurred was for reneging on her commitment to the U.S. government to work in a medically underserved area. The doctor was lent $46,726.00 to pay for her medical education. In exchange, she agreed to work in a medically underserved area for 3 years. She wanted to work in Pennsylvania, but she wasn't needed there - the government needed her in South Dakota. She refused to go, and so, per the statute in question, was required to pay 3 times the amount of the loan back with interest. By the time judgment was entered the amount had ballooned up to over $400,000.