This article prompted me to tell you about one of the things I discovered
during my two month nightmare on Community Medicaid in New York State. There
is an agency called The Center for Disability Rights which, as far as I can
tell, is a New York State not for profit charitable agency. One of its
services is to maintain a pooled trust in which the funds of disabled people
are deposited so that the finances of the disabled can be managed for them.
I believe that this was originally developed for developmentally disabled
people who were incapable of managing their own finances. At some point, the
service was extended to elderly and physically disabled people who needed to
receive medicaid benefits in order to afford care at home. The idea was that
their excess income, any income beyond what is allowable by Medicaid, would
go into the pooled trust. The deal is that it costs $200 to open an account.
It costs $10 for the trust to pay each of 4 bills per month. If one has more
than 4 bills, each additional bill costs $20 to pay. Additionally, it costs
$50 each year for one's account to be audited. The pooled trust keeps any
money left in the account when one dies. Bills are not always paid on time
so that one might also be charged a late fee. If one calls to check on
payment, the responses tend to be vague. You can check on line, but if you
see that a payment has been posted, there's no guarantee that it has
actually been paid. At one point, I called to complain and was told, "We
never promise to pay bills on time". Just imagine what is happening to the
funds of developmentally disabled people or elderly people with dimentia.
This is an example of how people with less money, pay more for things than
other people do.
Miriam
Kiriakou writes: "Donald Trump takes office in two short weeks. As I've
written previously, I don't expect much in the way of prison reform or
sentencing reform. Indeed, I've urged readers to take to the courts for
redress because we obviously won't get it from Trump or the Republican
Congress. As it turns out, the courts may be the only place where civil
liberties may still be protected."
Inmates at a Los Angeles jail. (photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
Should an Innocent Person Be Forced to Pay for Their Arrest?
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
05 January 17
Donald Trump takes office in two short weeks. As I've written previously, I
don't expect much in the way of prison reform or sentencing reform. Indeed,
I've urged readers to take to the courts for redress because we obviously
won't get it from Trump or the Republican Congress. As it turns out, the
courts may be the only place where civil liberties may still be protected.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case about a Minnesota law that
allows local police departments to charge a "processing fee" for any person
arrested for any reason, even if they are found not guilty of committing a
crime.
Corey Statham was arrested in Ramsey County, Minnesota, and charged with
disorderly conduct. Two days later, the charges were thrown out and Statham
was released from the local lock-up. He had $46 in his pocket when he was
arrested. But upon his release, the local police gave him back only $21. He
had been charged a $25 "booking fee." And to add insult to injury, Statham
got his $25 back on a debit card, which levied a fee of $7.25 for him to get
his money back. In the end, Statham, who was innocent of any crime, lost
$32.25 for no reason.
Many Americans drop $38.75 on dinner and don't give it a second thought. But
for many others, it's a lot of money. And it is poorer people who are more
likely to find themselves in this predicament.
I found the same thing to be true when I was released from prison, where I
spent 23 months after blowing the whistle on the CIA's torture program. I
had $55 left in my commissary account. When I was released, I was given the
money on a debit card that charged me $6 every time I tried to use it - even
for a balance inquiry. I got about $30 out of it before I threw it away,
empty. The rest of the money had gone to fees. I was fortunate, though. I
had friends and a family to help me. But what about the prisoner who needs
that money to survive when he's released? It seems to be little more than
official theft.
Fees are at least as high outside the federal program and in states other
than Minnesota. Kentucky, for example, bills people held in its jails for
the cost of incarceration - even when those people are exonerated or if
charges are dismissed. Five towns in Colorado levy the same kinds of fines,
and Colorado law demands that individuals file a lawsuit if they want their
money back.
In Statham's case, he filed a suit against Ramsey County, saying that he had
a presumption of innocence and that the county had no right to keep his
money. The County's defense was that it "provided the debit cards for the
convenience of the inmates." It admitted that it was difficult to argue that
the non-refundable $25 fee was constitutional. Still, the county's attorney
said that people innocent of crimes "can do it [try to get their money back]
as soon as they have the evidence that they haven't been found guilty." He
admitted, though, "There's some legwork involved."
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul ruled in Statham's favor
last year and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case later this year.
Ramsey County announced that it would neither submit a brief in the case nor
defend its actions. The Court ordered the county to file a brief, however,
leading observers to believe that it will force an end to the practices of
charging processing fees to innocent people and gouging those who are not.
________________________________________
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the
sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage
Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a
result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Inmates at a Los Angeles jail. (photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Should an Innocent Person Be Forced to Pay for Their Arrest?
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
05 January 17
onald Trump takes office in two short weeks. As I've written previously, I
don't expect much in the way of prison reform or sentencing reform. Indeed,
I've urged readers to take to the courts for redress because we obviously
won't get it from Trump or the Republican Congress. As it turns out, the
courts may be the only place where civil liberties may still be protected.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case about a Minnesota law that
allows local police departments to charge a "processing fee" for any person
arrested for any reason, even if they are found not guilty of committing a
crime.
Corey Statham was arrested in Ramsey County, Minnesota, and charged with
disorderly conduct. Two days later, the charges were thrown out and Statham
was released from the local lock-up. He had $46 in his pocket when he was
arrested. But upon his release, the local police gave him back only $21. He
had been charged a $25 "booking fee." And to add insult to injury, Statham
got his $25 back on a debit card, which levied a fee of $7.25 for him to get
his money back. In the end, Statham, who was innocent of any crime, lost
$32.25 for no reason.
Many Americans drop $38.75 on dinner and don't give it a second thought. But
for many others, it's a lot of money. And it is poorer people who are more
likely to find themselves in this predicament.
I found the same thing to be true when I was released from prison, where I
spent 23 months after blowing the whistle on the CIA's torture program. I
had $55 left in my commissary account. When I was released, I was given the
money on a debit card that charged me $6 every time I tried to use it - even
for a balance inquiry. I got about $30 out of it before I threw it away,
empty. The rest of the money had gone to fees. I was fortunate, though. I
had friends and a family to help me. But what about the prisoner who needs
that money to survive when he's released? It seems to be little more than
official theft.
Fees are at least as high outside the federal program and in states other
than Minnesota. Kentucky, for example, bills people held in its jails for
the cost of incarceration - even when those people are exonerated or if
charges are dismissed. Five towns in Colorado levy the same kinds of fines,
and Colorado law demands that individuals file a lawsuit if they want their
money back.
In Statham's case, he filed a suit against Ramsey County, saying that he had
a presumption of innocence and that the county had no right to keep his
money. The County's defense was that it "provided the debit cards for the
convenience of the inmates." It admitted that it was difficult to argue that
the non-refundable $25 fee was constitutional. Still, the county's attorney
said that people innocent of crimes "can do it [try to get their money back]
as soon as they have the evidence that they haven't been found guilty." He
admitted, though, "There's some legwork involved."
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul ruled in Statham's favor
last year and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case later this year.
Ramsey County announced that it would neither submit a brief in the case nor
defend its actions. The Court ordered the county to file a brief, however,
leading observers to believe that it will force an end to the practices of
charging processing fees to innocent people and gouging those who are not.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the
sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage
Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a
result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
