Re:Suspicious court cases, missing defendants, aim to get we...
by kbenson on Monday October 10, 2016 @02:03PM
(#12678745)
> Since they are apparently doing it in states where they have guaranteed the person does not exist, who is going to argue?
That's interesting. This may be a case where you are more secure if your name is common, such as John Smith, since I think the likelihood of finding a state without a John Smith in residence is fairly small.
Re:Suspicious court cases, missing defendants, aim to get we...
by paulajohnson on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @07:51AM
(#12683461)
OTOH demonstrating that none of the John Smiths in the state are the one named in the paperwork might be more difficult.
Since they are apparently doing it in states where they have guaranteed the person does not exist, who is going to argue?
Courts are pretty much the last people who ever would discover this. They entirely rely on their raw power to punish people to prospectively enforce decorum and rule, not investigation or auditing.
That is, they do not discover fraud easily or quickly, but when they discover fraud, it tends to go very much "not well" for the people involved.