Can a US state pass/enforce a law stating that a group of people owe money to the state government? What restrictions or prohibitions does the US Constitution or federal law set in place for states requiring citizens to pay money to the government? If my understanding is correct, there are several "categories" of debts a state could enforce on citizens: Fines for criminal convictions or civil infractions, provided the defendant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, and a proper sentence was issued by a judge, and/or the defendant plead guilty, etc. Taxes, which I presume must be authorized and regulated by the US Constitution, but I don't know the details Fees for specialized government services, e.g. business licensing fees, court fees, etc. My questions mostly surround the fees category. Namely, how are fees for government services justified under the US Constitution? Does the US Constitution guarantee all citizens have the natural right to conduct their own business affairs? If so, does a citizen lose the right to legally own and operate a business if they cannot afford requisite state or local business license fees? Likewise, does a citizen lose the right to utilize the court system to petition for a redress of grievances, if they cannot afford the requisite court fees? And lastly, if a citizen is convicted of a crime or infraction, and the sentence requires the convict to utilize government services (e.g. prison services, probation services, registration services, etc.); under the US Constitution, can state government agencies providing these services legally require the convict to pay fees for these services (e.g. prison service fees, probation service fees, registration service fees), if these fees were not explicitly included in the sentence as fines? (Side question: even if a fine is included in the sentence, is it unconstitutional for the convict to be sentenced to pay an indefinitely recurring fine, e.g. annually or quarterly?) If a state attempts to pass or enforce state legislation dictating such fees, should this legislation generally be struck down as unconstitutional? It seems unreasonable to me that the government could legally compel a citizen to do something or follow some legal process, but then slap a fee on that service after-the-fact (without a court order), and deny the citizen certain rights if they do not pay the fee.
There are a number of issues here. The question mentions: Taxes, which I presume must be authorized and regulated by the US Constitution, but I don't know the details Not exactly. The states existed before the Federal government. They are not created by the Federal Constitution, nor authorized by it. A number of restrictions on state powers and actions are specified by the Federal Constitution, and a number of others are imposed by Federal law. (the Federal courts have found implied restrictions beyond the explicitly stated ones.) But there is no Federal provision granting states the power to impose taxes, only restrictions on that pre-existing power. States cannot impose taxes so as to violate rights federally guaranteed, or to place unreasonable burdens on the exercise of those rights. For example, states cannot impose different taxes or tax rates on a racial basis. States cannot impose different taxes on residents of other states temporarily present in, or doing business in the state. States cannot impose different taxes on people newly moved there from other states, compared to long-established residents. State taxes must not violate the Equal Protection clause. However, states may choose the type and amount of taxes to impose. They can use sales tax, VAT tax, property tax, income tax, excise tax, flat tax, or any combination that their legislatures pass. Different taxes may be imposed on different professions or kinds of businesses. Does the US Constitution guarantee all citizens have the natural right to conduct their own business affairs? Not as such, no. The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses limit to some extent the ability of a state to prohibit a particular business on a whim. But when a state asserts that a particular business is harmful, and demonstrates a plausible basis for that view, so that the law passes "Rational basis" review, the state can prohibit it, or heavily regulate it, or license it. If so, does a citizen lose the right to legally own and operate a business if they cannot afford requisite state or local business license fees? A state may require a license to engage in a particular occupation, and may require a fee, one-time or recurring, high or low, for that license. In addition, a tax may be imposed on those in a particular business or profession, which is not imposed on other kinds of business. For example, in many states, lawyers must pay an annual license fee, or they are not allowed to practice. So must many other regulated professions, such as hairstylist. One who cannot afford the fee may not engage in the business or profession. The state may waive or reduce fees for those too poor to afford them, but need not do so, and many states do not so so. Similarly, the state may charge a fee for a driver's license, and one who cannot pay it may not legally drive. Likewise, does a citizen lose the right to utilize the court system to petition for a redress of grievances, if they cannot afford the requisite court fees? Many states have provisions waiving or lowering court fees for those who cannot afford them, but in most cases this is applied only in severe cases, say where a person would have to go without food to afford court fees. There have been a few federal cases requiring fee waivers for those who cannot afford court fees, mostly in connection with criminal defendants. There is not currently a general federal rule requiring court access for those who cannot afford court fees. Perhaps there should be. A case could be made that Equal Protection requires this, but Federal Courts have not so held. Federal courts have held that holding people in jail or prison because they truly cannot afford fines, bail, or court fees is an unconstitutional denial of Equal Protection. But states need not waive such fees; they can be deferred and charged should the person earn enough money to (just barely) afford them. Even this rule is not yet invariably enforced, and many state courts routinely ignore it. By the way "petition for a redress of grievances" doe snot normally refer to bringing a court case, but to asking a legislature to change a law, or asking an administrator or executive to exercise permitted discretion in a particular way. And lastly, if a citizen is convicted of a crime or infraction, and the sentence requires the convict to utilize government services (e.g. prison services, probation services, registration services, etc.); under the US Constitution, can state government agencies providing these services legally require the convict to pay fees for these services (e.g. prison service fees, probation service fees, registration service fees), if these fees were not explicitly included in the sentence as fines? Yes it can impose such fees, but usually only when neither the convict nor his or her dependents will be impoverished by such fees, as I understand it. If a state attempts to pass or enforce state legislation dictating such fees, should this legislation generally be struck down as unconstitutional? Such laws will not be held unconstitutional by US Federal courts under the Federal Constitution, unless they are found to violate Equal Protection, Due Process, or other specifically imposed restrictions on the state. For example, fees which were in practice imposed on people of one religion, but not those of another, would be struck down. But a fee imposed on everyone will not usually be overturned. "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread from shops, beg in the streets, and sleep under bridges." -Anatole France
Is my best bet to get a lawyer and sue? If so, approximately how much should I expect it to cost? How would it work with the requirement for him to pay the legal fees? You would ordinarily either hire a lawyer or bring suit yourself in a limited jurisdiction court (the kind that handles misdemeanor criminal offenses and smaller dollar amounts owed, the exact name of the court differs from state to state). You can always bring suit in the county where the debtor resides. If the loan was not for consumer purposes, you could sue in the place where the loan &quot;was made&quot; or in a forum provided by the loan documents (which does not appear to be present), that might be different from the place where the debtor resides. Usually, you would want to hire a lawyer with offices not too far from the place where you are bringing suit, as limited jurisdiction courts often require in person appearances. Normally, a lawyer would ask to be paid up front, with you posting a retainer equal to a significant share of the estimated legal fees, called a retainer against which the lawyer would bill until it was exhausted, and would normally bill on an hourly basis. Fees on the order of $1,500-$5,000 wouldn't be unusual. One factor that would increase the cost would be the fact that your loan is almost certainly at an illegally high rate of interest, and you and your lawyer would have to examine the relevant law to determine the effect of that on the enforceability of your loan, and the correct amount to claim. In some jurisdictions and circumstances, this might make your entitle loan or at least all interest on it and all fees incurred to collect the debt, uncollectible. In other jurisdictions it might just reduce the amount of interest you could recover. Without this complication, it might have been a matter you could handle on your own. With this complication, you really need a lawyer. You could probably not legitimately claim the full $18,000 plus attorney fees and costs. Some lawyers would take a case like this on a contingent fee basis with you only advancing court costs and out of pocket expenses like process serving charged, but they'd typically do so only if they were confident that they would prevail at trial and if they were also confident that the debtor had the ability to pay. On a one-off basis, a contingent fee percentage of 40%-50% would be more common in this situation that the &quot;usual&quot; one-third contingency rate. &quot;Reasonable&quot; legal fees would be added to the amount you are owed on the loan if the high rate of interest doesn't invalidate this provision. Amounts recovered for legal fees would be paid to you from which you could repay your lawyer whatever you owed your lawyer. In a contingent fee case, usually hourly based fees are awarded and included in the total amount recovered (once the debtor actually pays) and the lawyer would get a percentage of the total collected regardless of what the amount recovered is supposed to be for. Another option would be to sell your debt to a debt collection firm which would charge you a small sign up fee and then collect a percentage of the debt recovered. The usurious interest rate involved, however, might discourage them from accepting you as a customer or buying the debt. If the debtor is not collectible with a job and/or real estate with substantial equity, you probably won't be able to find someone to take the case on a contingent fee basis at all, and will probably have to pay an hourly rate. Do I have the option to take this up via civil complaints? Or is that only for people who are in the same state? It isn't clear what you mean in these questions. A lawsuit is commenced by filing a civil complaint, filed by you or your lawyer in a court, and this can be done even if you don't live in the same state as the debtor, although it may be necessary to file it in the state where the debtor lives. But, the government won't supply a lawyer to help you collect your debt in the way that it would appoint a prosecutor to bring criminal charges against someone who committed a crime in which you were a victim.
Why does the one country that promotes constitutional democracies above all others not have a judicial branch specifically for those matters? I know SCOTUS will hear these matters . . . I have had it mention that SCOTUS hears less than a hundred cases a year. Something which sounds incredibly low. A constitutional court profoundly limits the extent to which relief for violations of the constitution are judicially reviewable relative to the U.S. status quo. All courts from traffic court on up hear these matters and adjudicate constitutional issue in the status quo. It is also helpful to recognize that the U.S. Constitution regulates government conduct, not necessarily only though the device of determining that legislation is or is not constitutional. If a police officer stops you without having reasonable suspicion to do so, he has violated the U.S. Constitution, without regard to what the statutes of the state in question say. If evidence is seized without probable cause and this evidence is introduced in court over your objection in a criminal case, the government has violated the constitution and you are entitled (unless it was harmless error) to have your conviction vacated. If a tax collector seizes your property for unpaid taxes without first affording you due process to dispute their right to do so, the government has violated one of your constitutional rights. The Constitution imposes affirmative duties and obligations on the government, it does not merely invalidate laws enacted as unconstitutional. Most instances of constitutional adjudication involve government conduct and not the validity of government enacted statutes.
Short Answer The dollar amount of a criminal tax offense is considered at the sentencing stage, but is only one of many factors and merely helps determine which of several possible sentencing guideline sentences that a U.S. judge uses as a starting point when determining the sentence. While the amount of money involved is a factor, the punishment isn't usually &quot;proportional&quot; to the tax liability in a criminal tax case. But criminal tax offenses make up only a tiny fraction of all punishments imposed for violating tax laws. Most tax law violations are punished with civil penalties that are often proportional to the amount of tax not paid or not reported. The U.S. pattern in this respect is typical of punishments for violating tax laws in the developed world more generally. Undeveloped and developing country economies tend to be less bureaucratic and to have a more criminal law oriented system for punishing violations of their revenue collection laws, and also tend to have narrower tax bases limited to more concrete transactions. Many resource rich countries, like oil rich monarchies, often don't impose taxes on the general public at all. Long Answer I'm sure they will punish me somehow, and not care about any explanation I might have. But will the punishment be 40 years in federal maximum security prison, even though the amount of money is ridiculously small? Or will they just tell me to pay it and perhaps add a $20 fee on top of the 30% of $500 that they consider me to owe them? When Are Tax Crimes Prosecuted? The vast majority of the time, when you don't pay your taxes, tax collection authorities impose a monetary civil penalty, which often is proportional to the amount of money at stake, rather than punish your non-compliance in the criminal justice system. Less frequently, the civil penalty involves the forfeiture of property of the offending taxpayer (e.g. currency received as lawful payments for goods or services that is not disclosed to tax officials), or the loss of some tax law related benefit or privilege (e.g. disallowing a tax credit when a tax return upon which it should be claimed isn't filed by the due date). Strict liability or negligence based penalties for tax law violations are usually civil rather than criminal. Criminal penalties for tax law violations are usually reserved for intentional misconduct. How Severe Are Tax Crime Penalties? Criminal tax crimes usually involve intentional fraud or willful conduct influencing the amount of taxes you owe (as opposed to good faith efforts to lawfully not pay higher taxes than necessary, or negligent or unintentional actions that have that effect), or intentional non-reporting or misreporting of information necessary for the government to determine how much tax someone else owes, or willfully failing to pay or collect taxes when the taxable is able to pay or collect the taxes, or for conduct that thwarts tax collection more generally (like sending fake inaccurate tax forms to random people causing them to pay the wrong amount of taxes or none at all). The maximum penalty for serious tax crimes of this type are typically similar in severity to the maximum penalty for non-violent theft, forgery or fraud offenses not involving taxes, which is typically at the low to medium end for felony criminal conduct and is typically far less than the maximum punishment for violent crimes. Crimes involving willful manipulation of how much tax is owed by someone usually has higher maximum criminal penalties than willful failure to pay or collect taxes. Conduct such as lying to tax investigators, or disregarding legal process during tax audits and litigation, or other fraudulent conduct that doesn't change how much is owed or paid directly but makes it more cumbersome to collect taxes (like intentionally filing a false information tax return, when the taxpayer reports the income anyway, or filing a false information tax return to harass someone who doesn't owe any tax in the first place), are typically misdemeanors with only comparatively minor criminal penalties (perhaps a few days to a year in jail and a fine in the hundreds or single digit thousands of dollars). The main driver of the maximum penalty for the narrow range of tax law violations are actually tax crimes is how clearly malicious and unruly the conduct is, rather than the amount in controversy. Negligently failing to pay $10,000,000, or recklessly taking a very dubious tax law position in a tax return, will usually result in a large civil tax penalty, but no criminal prosecution. Intentionally forging or doctoring a $700 information tax return, or intentionally paying a tax bill with counterfeit currency, will usually have criminal penalties. There are also quite a few crimes that arguably count as tax crimes for conduct like murdering tax collectors, kidnapping tax collectors, assaulting tax collectors, bribing tax collectors, blackmailing tax collectors to act unlawfully, stealing or destroying tax collection agency property, etc. that would be crimes even if there was no tax component to the conduct, that I do not consider in this answer. These crimes are usually punished only modestly more severely than they are in the non-tax context when no government officials or offices are involved, and are usually punished with about the same severity as other crimes against non-tax government officials. Determining The Sentence For A Tax Crime Under U.S. Law In the U.S., the maximum period of incarceration for a federal tax related crime is usually not related to the amount of money that the government was denied in tax revenues, although the civil penalties for violations of tax laws are usually capped at a percentage of the tax not paid. Criminal fines for tax offenses are sometimes related to the dollar amount of the offense, and sometimes aren't related directly to the dollar amount, although they may be determined with the dollar amount of the offense in mind. The length of the sentence of incarceration and the amount of the fine actually imposed by a federal judge upon a conviction for a federal tax related crime between the maximum and minimum sentences authorized by law is governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines set by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. The guideline sentence is based upon the specific subsection of the federal tax crime for which you were convicted and then a lot of factors that add or deduct points. Some of the points are related to your prior criminal history. Some of the points are related to your conduct in the litigation (e.g. did you cooperate with prosecutors), and some of the points are based upon the nature of the offense itself, including the dollar amount of the tax loss caused by the crime. Typically, there are several dollar ranges for each crime, and the number of points added to the number used to determine the sentencing guideline range is stated for each of the possible range of dollar values of the money at issue in the crime. The number of points you have after the judge evaluates all of these factors (based upon a preponderance of the evidence with lower evidentiary standards than those that apply at the guilt-innocence phase of the case) to produce a non-binding recommended sentencing range for the crime. The judge than imposes the sentence. A sentence within a correctly determined sentencing guideline range is always upheld on appeal. A judge can impose a sentence that is higher than the guideline range but lower than the maximum statutorily authorized sentence, or below the guideline range by higher than the minimum statutorily authorized sentence, if the judge articulates reasons for doing so that are on a list of reasons that a judge can impose a non-guideline sentence. If a sentence for a federal tax crime conviction is appealed, the appellate court evaluates whether the sentencing guideline range was determined correctly, and whether if the judge imposed a sentence outside the sentencing guideline range, if the reasons articulated by the judge were insufficient to justify that decision and hence constituted an abuse of discretion by the judge. If the appellate court makes that determination, the case is remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the appellate court opinion (assuming that the conviction itself was affirmed on appeal).
with the new movement by some states to require voters to have identification to vote, and the fact that no state I know of provides free government issued ID (unless you are an employee) it seems that unless a state provided its residents with free access to state-issued ID, that requiring people to go pay for ID's needed to vote would be contrary to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. This specific issue (which is much easier to address than the general question) has been litigated, and in some cases, it has been a successful argument. It is pretty much acknowledged now that requiring a fee for all documents required in order to have ID necessary to vote violates the 24th Amendment. But, the states that enacted these requirements knew that and tried to get around it by making at least one form of voter ID free, which prevents the statutes from being facially invalid. This isn't the end of the question, however: Voter ID laws, enacted in 11 states over the past two years, require voters to show a government-issued photo ID that the state will provide for free. But while the ID is free, the documents residents need to prove their identity in order to get that ID, such as a birth certificate, are not. Now, lots of people already have documents like birth certificates that were purchased by their parents at their birth and are now available to them for free. But, that isn't always the case. This raises the question of whether there is an "as applied" violation of the 24th Amendment in the cases of someone who can't prove their entitlement to compliant voter ID without paying for it, and if so, what the proper remedy is for the violation. These issues are still being actively litigated and haven't been definitively resolved on a national basis in all circumstances.
Direct civil suits are not the only way to obtain remedies for property violations. Other options: Ask. You can send them a simple letter describing the violation and asking them to compensate you appropriately. Complain to authorities. If they engaged in any behavior that constitutes a crime (e.g., criminal fraud) then the state (via district or state attorneys) is responsible for any criminal prosecution. If the state prosecutes and you are considered a victim, the state generally takes that into account if they are able to prevail against the defender. Even if they didn't commit a crime, but they have a sufficiently outrageous pattern of abusing individuals' civil rights, state attorneys may decide to threaten or take legal action. Seek a "litigation investor." If the size of damages likely to be recovered via lawsuit is high enough, then law firms will sometimes take cases "on contingency," which typically means the plaintiff does not front any money, but gives up a significant share of any winnings. There are also independent litigation investment companies that perform the same function based on a similar calculus, but often for even larger cuts of any winnings.
In California, the small claims court has jurisdiction over claims up to $10,000. In order to have personal jurisdiction over him: He must have a summons and complaint hand delivered to him (or to certain other people such as an adult who lives in his household, or to his secretary if he has one). This is called "service of process" and there are professionals called "process servers" who can do this for you in most cities. The service of process can take place anywhere in the world and still be valid. The summons and complaint must be hand delivered by a person over the age of eighteen who is not a party to the lawsuit and is not your attorney. The events that form the basis of the lawsuit must have happened in California, not merely the United States (long arm personal jurisdiction), or he must have the summons and complaint personally hand delivered to him in the State of California (tag jurisdiction). If you win, either by default if he fails to respond by the deadline, or following a trial, you will get a piece of paper called a judgment that legally determines that he owes you $X, which you must then enforce. A judgment can be enforced, for example, by garnishing his bank accounts, garnishing monies due to him from an employer or from a sole proprietorship he operates, seizing tangible personal property that he owns with the assistance of a sheriff, or putting a lien on real estate he owns. A judgment from a California small claims court can only be enforced against assets in California. There is a relatively simple process for having a judgment from California turned into a judgment from any other U.S. state. There is a relatively difficult and expensive process for having a judgment from California turned into a judgment from England that only sometimes works because some aspects of the U.S. civil court system (like punitive damages) are considered to be against public policy in England and are thus not enforceable there. You cannot have someone arrested for failure to pay a civil judgment. Enforcing the judgment is likely to be much more difficult than getting the judgment in your case. It is also possible to make a criminal complaint if the acts genuinely constitute theft. If a prosecutor finds that there is probable cause to back up your claim, the prosecutor could obtain an arrest warrant from the court in the place where the theft took place and that could be served within California when the individual is present in California (i.e., he could be arrested in California, after which the criminal justice process would proceed). Generally, to constitute theft, it must be intentional and must not be a mere breach of an agreement, in which case it is a breach of contract rather than theft. Any theft small enough to be addressed in small claims court would probably not be considered serious enough for the government to request extradition from the U.K. for, a step usually reserved for serious felonies, but if extradiction was sought from the U.K., the process on the U.K. side is described here. Any extradiction request would be handled by the prosecutor's office and law enforcement, in cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies.
Your understanding of “legal tender” is flawed There is plenty of case law to show that governments can place reasonable restrictions on payment by legal tender up to and including excluding it entirely. Picano v Borough of Emerson explains this very succinctly: Finally, there is no basis for concluding that defendants violated 31 U.S.C. § 5103. Section 5103 provides that &quot;United States coins and currency . . . are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.&quot; None of the cases cited by plaintiff stands for the proposition that § 5103 requires a local government (or any other entity) to accept payment in cash, and no court has so held. The refusal by governments to accept pennies (or any other small denomination) has withstood challenge multiple times. 31 U.S.C. § 5103 does not create a requirement to accept cash.