( A blog revived that I wrote in Mar. 2011)
Has anything changed?
I recently called the Attorney General's office to make an inquiry as to how the process worked for bank garnishees on private individual's bank accounts.
I was told by an Ass't Att. Gen., Linda Evans, that she could not answer the question because the Attorney Generals job was to service the affairs of the State Agencies on legal matters.
I questioned this with the query that since the Office leader is required to be voted in by every voter in the state, that his or her job should be to see to it that ALL the laws of the state be followed. I brought this to her attention because I was told by another Ass't Attorney General two years ago that part of the office was to act as prosecutor for the various departments of the state such as fine violations against a contactor.
I consider this a conflict of interest because it restricts his job to represent us all. For a contractor who has been unfairly treated he is told they can't comment on the case because they serve as the prosecutor for the State agencies.
If appointed, I would agree. But voted in by the People should mean they should watch for any sign of nonsense created by the State Agencies, don't you think?
This handcuffs the office from investigating the case and as a result forces the contractor to hire a lawyer at his or her additional expense to fight the charge that could very well be unjustly filed.
Also, to contest the case the contractor is required by the Att. General's office to post a $200.00 bond and even if he wins the case, they aren't forced to return the bond money.
There is definitely something wrong with the picture, wouldn't you say?
I mean, didn't we hire an Attorney when we elected one to that office?
If this behavior is a requirement by the Governor or the State then it definitely takes away the independence and the ability of the Attorney General's office to represent us all. I believe the state should supply their own lawyers. It would probably enable our Att. General to properly represent the whole state of voters as it should be. As it is, they will not even listen to your complaint before they tell you to hire a lawyer.
The reason for the call to the A.G.'s office this time was because an acquaintance had a debt collector from Spokane process a garnishee authorized by a Supreme Court judge, Susan Cook, and signed by Clerk of the Court Nancy C. Scott, to seize the account of the friend at a Mt. Vernon bank, wiping out both of his accounts. Absolutely no legal process was observed before the action took place to collect the debt by civil court first .
What happened in fact was this; They garnisheed that person's account which only consisted of his Social Security deposits that, according to law, could not be garnisheed! They left him with nothing!
The debt collector doesn't believe in answering his phone in Spokane when he is called. He only responds by saying, "Please leave a message."
The paper states $9800.00 debt, $14,000.00 int. @ 29% for 5 years. LOL.
Doesn't that conflict with the law in the St. of Wa. that restricts interest rates to no more than 12
% per Annum? Just sayin'.
No comments:
Post a Comment