Courts deducting money from benefit

stevemLS

You're plainly a tit - if the court imprisons you in contempt that is how our law works.

silvercar

If you haven't got the means to pay the fine from savings and you don't want the fine taken from your benefit money, how do you think it should be paid?

Or do you believe that people on benefits should not have to pay fines?

I'm just a bit confused how you are intending to pay if it shouldn't come from your benefit money.

moaninggit

blowfelt wrote: »

Somewhere.
You know nothing which makes you the Mother **** of all assumptions

The 120k was if i had sold my property.I did not sell the property and my ex owns it now.

now get right
1 you were on remand for 3 months
2 you did 7 days for non payment of a fine
3 you once again have been fined by the courts and you are appealing to the higher court
4 2005 your partner gave you £5000 to finish the mortgage and promptly went on IB
5 2008 you had 120k to invest
6 2012 you gave the house you did not sell to your ex who wasn't on the deeds

I and most sane people think you need a solicitor
breast

System

stevemLS wrote: »

You're plainly a tit - if the court imprisons you in contempt that is how our law works.

You are an even bigger tit.

Just bc the courts found me guilty does not mean i am that is why i am Appealing this conviction.What would you sane ppl do if you knew you was not gulty of a crime,would you appeal or just except the guilty verdict?

There is alot of corruption in the justice system and you ppl are obliviouse to it,or are you.Just wait and see what justice you ppl receive if you every have to go to court.Even you goody two shoes will get rough justice.

Evidence is used in all courts to decide the outcome of a crime.So if you have concrete evidence that exonerate you of a crime then why did the the courts not look at my evidence,simple corruption.

All you ppl owt to get a live and understand what happens in the real world.
Look here
http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/

dippy3103

blowfelt wrote: »

There is alot of corruption in the justice system and you ppl are obliviouse to it,or are you.Just wait and see what justice you ppl receive if you every have to go to court.Even you goody two shoes will get rough justice.

Evidence is used in all courts to decide the outcome of a crime.So if you have concrete evidence that exonerate you of a crime then why did the the courts not look at my evidence,simple corruption.

Depends on if your concrete evidence was admissible, lawfully obtained etc.

tomterm8

blowfelt wrote: »

Evidence is used in all courts to decide the outcome of a crime.So if you have concrete evidence that exonerate you of a crime then why did the the courts not look at my evidence,simple corruption.

Hard to answer that question without looking at your case notes. There are many reasons evidence may not be admissible. For example, if it was obtained unlawfully.

If there was some maladministration in your court case then the correct process is to appeal.

If you appeal then the court will normally suspend any repayment of fines until the appeal is heard. It's not actually obliged to do in all cases, but that's normal. It does sound like perhaps you've already gone through one appeal process and the court may have lost patience with you.

mjm3346

blowfelt wrote: »

Just bc the courts found me guilty does not mean i am

Yes it does, legally you are guilty and will remain guilty unless the verdict is overturned.

marywooyeah

blowfelt wrote: »

It is my Choice not to be represented.Solicitors don't represent you properly anyway they are only there to help courts run smoothly and on time.

Solicitors are there to represent you properly. That's why they train for years on end, know the law inside out and keep training for the duration that they are practising.

You've not done a great job of representing yourself so far so swallow your pride and go and seek some legal advice, even if it's only about appealing your conviction.

Morglin wrote: »

It sounds as though (it is a bit confusing!) you have been fined for contempt of court, for not paying the fine to begin with, and as you have not been given leave to appeal, you are guilty (in law).

It does sound like OP was fined for contempt of court through not paying the fine, but not being given leave to appeal does not equal guilt. It simply means that the judge does not feel that there are grounds to appeal, which in practise is very common.

If a judge gives leave to appeal, it means that they recognise (not an exhaustive list) that they could have misapplied the law, that the case has raised a point of law which needs clarifying by a higher court, or that their decision was plainly wrong.

Very few judges will give leave as it could indicate that they doubt their own judgment!

OP if you want to appeal you need to do so very quickly - there are strict timelimits, usually 21 or 28 days (I practice family law not criminal so not sure of the criminal timelimits) and there is a strict procedure of paperwork you need to follow too.

Ring a local criminal solicitor in the morning and book in for a short appointment for some advice. Good luck!

tomterm8

marywooyeah wrote: »

If a judge gives leave to appeal,..
Very few judges will give leave as it could indicate that they doubt their own judgment!

It's important to note that not being given leave to appeal by the original judge does not mean that you will not be able to appeal.

This is one of those things that confuses people:D

Big_Tree

blowfelt wrote: »

My question was,can the courts legally take money out of your benefit without permission from the benefit holder?

Unless someone guides me to the reference in law (no one has yet) which states they can do the above,then it is legally wrong.

What University did you get your law degree from?