Replies

"Contempt is to protect the integrity of the court and the standards are fairly clear. (ie you must be warned first)."

Warned? Warned about what? That you must pay money which you don't have? What good is that type of "warning?" I disagree that the standards are clear. It is basically whatever a judge wants to say it is and you can rot in jail until a higher court grants you habeus corpus relief.

Simple generic example: Judge issues a written order and the person does not comply with the written order.

In order for the court to have a finding of contempt, the judge must have a hearing in which the person is permitted to present evidence why they should not be held in contempt. (i complied as best i could, noncompliance was involuntary, etc.) Contempt must be willful, voluntary and contumacious. In other words the judge must show you intentionally did not comply and you knew it.

If you do not have the money after the fact you don't have the money.

This is a bad bill and will be a bad law. This is especially true with all the lay offs.