HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Court orders Brawley's wa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:14 PM

Court orders Brawley's wages garnished to pay restitution

Source: Poughkeepsie Journal

Notoriously known as the girl who cried rape, Tawana Brawley could finally have to pay the man she accused of horrific acts about 25 years ago, court records show.

A nurse working under the name Tawana V. Thompson Gutierrez, she owes $431,492, including interest, as part of a defamation lawsuit won by the man she accused, according to a court order to garnish her wages obtained by the Journal.

Brawley works at Laurels of Bon Air nursing home in Richmond, Va., the court records show.

After Brawley left Dutchess County, she allegedly changed her name and Social Security number to avoid paying $189,926 in a defamation lawsuit won by Steven Pagones in 1998, his lawyer, Garry Bolnick said.

Read more: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130131/NEWS01/130131013/Court-orders-Brawley-s-wages-garnished-pay-restitution

26 replies, 3667 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court orders Brawley's wages garnished to pay restitution (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 OP
RevStPatrick Jan 2013 #1
11cents Jan 2013 #3
former9thward Jan 2013 #4
djg21 Feb 2013 #20
Archae Jan 2013 #2
11cents Jan 2013 #5
Nay Jan 2013 #6
happyslug Jan 2013 #10
msanthrope Jan 2013 #13
happyslug Jan 2013 #15
msanthrope Jan 2013 #16
NoGOPZone Jan 2013 #14
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #7
nomorenomore08 Jan 2013 #17
leftynyc Feb 2013 #22
happyslug Jan 2013 #8
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #9
nick of time Jan 2013 #11
msanthrope Jan 2013 #12
Tutonic Jan 2013 #18
leftynyc Feb 2013 #23
Le Taz Hot Feb 2013 #24
amandabeech Feb 2013 #19
Xithras Feb 2013 #21
amandabeech Feb 2013 #26
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #25

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:34 PM

1. Personally, I think...

 

...our friend Reverend Al should pay some of that off for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:37 PM

3. Hear, hear.

He was overheard saying at the time that he thought her story was bullshit. But it was good business for him. And he can well afford it; the woman that he used when she was a teenager obviously can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:37 PM

4. He should pay the whole thing.

Since he engineered it. And he does very well for himself currently and can easily afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:13 AM

20. I hope he pays it all.

And I will not watch MSNBC so long as he works for that network. He is a disgrace, and does not peak for this a democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:36 PM

2. Doesn't Al Sharpton still defend this liar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:38 PM

5. Yes, and of course he's really defending himself.

He "defends" her to avoid doing the hard and right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:15 PM

6. Why the hell did it take 25 years for this poor guy to get any money? Good heavens. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:05 PM

10. Sharpton paid up in 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations

Furthermore, Sharpton's case went to trial and many of the accusation of libel were dismissed by the Jury (and on some of the counts the jury were deadlocked so no decision on those counts).

Brawley was sued but never made an appearance, thus a default judgment was entered (i.e. no trial).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:17 PM

13. Sharpton didn't pay up--he passed a hat and Johnny Cochran and other people paid his judgment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:35 PM

15. As far as the Law is Concerned that is the same thing

It does NOT matter who pays a Judgment, as long as the Judgment is paid. The only people who have any concern on HOW a judgment is paid is the IRS, for such payment may be (and probably is) income to the person who has the judgment against him or her (In this case Sharpton)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:50 PM

16. You miss the point. The law may not care, and this particular judgment will be counted as income,

but the fact remains is that Al Sharpton did not pay for his lies. And that is unfortunate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:34 PM

14. It didn't

Damages were awarded in 1998 and payments began three years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:37 PM

7. This case is why Al Sharpton should never be considered credible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:20 PM

17. I wouldn't go that far myself. Even a stopped clock etc. etc.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:26 AM

22. I remember very well what

rev al did during that time in NY history. The poster is right in saying he has no credibility - between this and the whole Yankel Rosenbaum case, the good rev tore this city apart. Race relations were at an all time low and he continued to throw gasoline on the fire and he has never apologized for defending that liar. I'll never forgive him for that. He's nothing but a charlatan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:51 PM

8. She is working as an LPN and he expects her to pay???

http://bossip.com/701229/blast-from-the-past-hate-crime-rape-fake-tawana-brawley-still-hiding-her-shady-past-has-yet-to-pay-dime-of-430k-she-owes-for-lying-on-prosecutor/

Lets review FEDERAL Withholding law,
1. The Attachment can NOT be more then 25% of Wages AND
2. The Defendant must be left with at least 30 times the weekly minimum wage per week i.e. $7.15x 30 or $214,50 per week.

Furthermore if she owes taxes or child support, those are superior claims over a debt like this one.

In 46 states of the Union prohibits any attachment of wages for this type of debt. North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas are the four states that do NOT permit attachment of wages for this type of debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment

Pennsylvania's ban goes back to at least the 1880s and the "Long Depression" (but was ignored by many employers as to employees debt to them, till the Great Depression of the 1930s).

In this case the real issue is reasonableness, but it does not look like the ex-prosecutor is willing to leave bygones be bygones so it looks like it will end up in Bankruptcy Court.

Now, if you are involved in a Criminal activity, and subsequently ordered to pay back for the damage you did, such an debt is NOT disagreeable in bankruptcy. If you are in an accident while drinking (DUI) any loss you cause is NOT disagreeable to bankruptcy.

On the other hand most other debts are (Student loans, taxes are not discharge in Bankruptcy but that is anther subject), including being liable and causing someone else financial loss. Since is living with one child, if she is earning less the $22,695 (150% of the poverty level for a family of two) she does not even has to pay the $299 filing fee for bankruptcy (One of the good parts of the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform act).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:00 PM

9. Good! Should have happened years ago

The one bad mark against Reverend Al -- he should have apologized for certain actions concerning this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:08 PM

11. What about the Duke Lacross debacle?

 

That's a bad mark also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:16 PM

12. Taking money from Republicans to run as a spoiler candidate in 2004 is another mark.



Sleeping With the GOP
A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton's Campaign

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.

Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides who've worked for him in prior campaigns. He's even boasted about engineering six-figure loans to Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN costs—neither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a wide-ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching-fund and staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies.

Sharpton denounced the Voice's inquiries as "phony liberal paternalism," insisting that he'd "talk to anyone I want" and likening his use of Stone to Bill Clinton's reliance on pollster Dick Morris, saying he was "sick of these racist double standards." He did not dispute that Stone had helped generate matching contributions and staff the campaign. Asked about the Stone loans, he conceded that he "asked him to help NAN," but attributed the financial aid to his and Stone's joint "fight against the Rockefeller drug laws," adding: "If he did let me use his credit card to cover NAN expenses, fine." The finances of NAN and the Sharpton campaign have so merged in recent months that they have shared everything from contractors to consultants to travel expenses, though Sharpton insists that these questionable maneuvers have been done in compliance with Federal Election Commission regulations.

snip--

Recruited in 2000 by his friend James Baker, the former secretary of state, to spearhead the GOP street forces in Miami, Stone is apparently confident that he can use the Democrat-bashing preacher to damage the party's eventual nominee, just as Sharpton himself bragged he did in the New York mayoral campaign of 2001. In his 2002 book, Al on America, Sharpton wrote that he felt the city's Democratic Party "had to be taught a lesson" in 2001—insisting that Mark Green, who defeated the Sharpton-backed Fernando Ferrer in a bitter runoff, had disrespected him and minorities. Adding that the party "still has to be taught one nationally," he warned: "A lot of 2004 will be about what happened in New York in 2001. It's about dignity." In 2001, Sharpton engaged in a behind-the-scenes dialogue with campaign aides to Republican Mike Bloomberg while publicly disparaging Green.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-01-27/news/sleeping-with-the-gop/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:59 PM

18. I give up...this site is filled with a group of nuts. No better than Red State or Free Republic.

I am saddened that DU has sunk to the level of the rabid posters that it hosts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tutonic (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:31 AM

23. I suspect if you lived here in NYC

during that time, you would feel differently. Go back and see what he was saying about whites and Jews. He's as racist as any klansman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tutonic (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:33 AM

24. Feel free to point out

to said posters what your objections are because, just reading this post, I've no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:14 AM

19. Sharpton's conduct was reprehensible.

What Ms. Brawley did was wrong, too, but she was only 14 when all of this happened. She lied because she was afraid that her stepfather would beat her badly because she had been out all night with her boyfriend.

The prosecutor that she accused was wronged, but expecting that Ms. Brawley pay that money for something she did at 14 shows him in a very, very bad light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:29 AM

21. No, she shouldn't be cleared in this.

The defamation judgment was entered in 1998. She was still trying to defend the hoax in 1997, ten years after it happened, and when she was 25 years old. She was still, a decade after the whole thing went down, publicly referring to him as a rapist. It would be one thing if we were only talking about the statements she made in 1987, but she kept repeating the accusations long after she was old enough to know better in some desperate attempt to save face. When she was finally sued and was given a chance to defend herself, she didn't even bother showing up to court. She skipped town and changed her name.

Pagones is the victim here. He did nothing wrong, had his life disrupted for years, his marriage destroyed, and his name and photo smeared across the national media by her pointless hoax. She already got off pretty easy by not being charged with faking the crime...paying some cash to her victim as compensation isn't too much to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:54 AM

26. I did not know that she continued making the statements after she had "grown up."

I lived in the New York area in the '80s and remember quite a bit about that disaster, as well as Rev. Sharpton's involvement in Crown Heights.

However, I left New York in late 1991, and did not follow the story after that. I had no idea that she kept on with the accusations.

Having read your post, I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:40 AM

25. The Tawana Brawley saga is why I can't make myself like Sharpton

He and the other two stooges (Mason and Maddox) came to Dutchess county to support a story that was obviously at least highly exaggerated. They encouraged a 14 year old child to inflate her accusations to encompass more people and to recklessly continue them.
She can never pay this money but Al and his friends could pay it on her behalf. Then they could all admit they were wrong and apologize to the accused.
That would be the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread