Talk:Civil recovery demands

Apparently, you edited out the FACT out that two of the Appeals Courts have ruled that defendants who have paid the civil demand for the shoplifting event cannot be prosecuted for shoplifting under the law---because of double jeopardy protections of the Constitution.

Apparently, there is yet no consensus in the law on whether or not suspects can be ticketed or arrested for shoplifting and still subjected to a civil demand by the retailer. The Wiki attorneys should take a look at this but when you leave this fact out, you enable the retailers to do both ---have the individual arrested or ticketed for larceny and submit the suspect to a civil demand. Until a practice is ruled unconstitutional in a particular state, it remains constitutional.

In providing the hard fact about the Appeals Courts and in not making any conclusions as to the affect and effect in the practice of arresting suspects for "shoplifting" Wikipedia maintains its neutrality. In leaving this information out, you protect the status quo.

cjkc -- 14:35 7 Feb 08


 * It appears that you are the author of Carol, Ripoff Report, Kansas City, Missouri 2006-04-28. In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for making a point.  Please read the policy and understand why that is incompatible with what wp is about and why it simply won't work.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your policy LeadSongDog but I do think that that you should have some referral to the Civil Demands for Shoplifting Article in the Shoplifting Article. Also, in indicating that shoplifting eventually impacts the consumer and NOT indicating that the subsidy of Civil Demands mitigates the loss to some degree to the Retailer,  the Wikipedia Article is not accurate. You understand, don't you, that the only rationalization for the cities to send their commissioned police to the stores to write tickets and to arrest shoplifters after they were allowed to exit final checkout points without being stopped and asked for payment was that it would deter shoplifting and the deterrence would mean lower prices to the consumers because the retailers's profits would be protected? The rationale for this was that the retailers passs along their overhead costs of security, etc.. to the consumers in the form of higher prices for the items offered for sale, etc! But, now! with civil demand letters, they get damages even when there is no actual loss because the item is returned to stock to be sold and the damages are applied to their overhead which is written off on their taxes. The incentive to arrest and civil demand is always there.

This subsidy has tainted our courts and this is the real harm to our country. Yes! I am Carol of the AAFES Rip Off Article. I want you to know that I stayed in channels and wrote the Government, the DOD, etc.. for a year or more, and the Pentagon, etc... trying to get some response under the FOIA as to how much of the $200 Civil Recovery in government stores  went to the private contrators who wrote the demand letters, etc..and asked whether this was all legal. Shoplifting appeared to increase when the $200 Civil Demands were made possible and I asked for an IG Investigation. I Emailed the Judiciary Committee and I contacted the Committee of the Congress who slipped the amendment to Debt Collection into the Treasury Law but I never received any response other than deniasls and referrals  from my government. I just wanted someone to defend the process as legal in writing. I even wrote the President's Integrity Committee and then I decided to go public on the Bad Business Bureau's Rip Off Report.

Thank you LeadDogSong for NOW having a Civil Demand -Civil Recovery Article under Wikipedia. I have accomplished this. I know a lot of people look to Wikipedia for their information about subject matter. I will not try to edit any more and will leave it up to you. If you do not want to share the information about the Appeals Courts Rulings and the difference between the state civil law, the tort, and the federal "debt" the $200 Administrative Fee and believe that it is justice that our troops and their families should be subject to double jeoparty because of the difference in state and federal laws,  that, of course, is your business. (I will now write Michael Moore because I heard yesterday that he is doing a new documentary on how the corporations have taken over the government and the law to maximize profits, etc...)--24.166.188.91 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)