Oops, I put a few too many zeros on that. I could have sworn the story I saw said $250 million.
Really? In Canada, you can’t insure yourself against criminal actions, so an umbrella policy wouldn’t cover a fine for a criminal conviction.
ETA: sorry, I thought i was responding to the last post in the thread. I see it’s already been covered.
Sometimes they actually DO just write a check.
St. Louis receives $790 million settlement payout from Rams lawsuit
St. Louis County Chief Communications Officer Doug Moore confirmed the $790 million settlement agreed upon to end the lawsuit over the Rams’ relocation has been paid as of Dec. 24.
No, DeadState.org actually did say $250 million. Sorry, I should have posted it. But yeah, probably not that much, right?
I still have to go with ‘no’ on that one. From the DeadState article:
A woman from California who assaulted a Southwest Airlines flight attendant back in May now faces 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine,
“My father’s not crazy, and I can prove it!” They must have retracted their original post. It’s still showing up as $250 million on my screen.
ETA: Yeah, I just reloaded it and the correct amount, $250,000, is now showing up.
I guessed somewhere had probably actually written it. The advantage to posting the link is that we can mock them, instead of mocking you 
Moderator Note
Please avoid gender-specific epithets like this.
I must say, that IS a lot of cache.
[I’d like to formally apologize to all for that one – especially to those who aren’t particularly computer-savvy]
FYI, some news sites, like those of traditional newspapers, will note corrections made to online articles.
I forget the specifics, but there was a Law & Order quote that fits here.
During a plea deal McCoy has made a generous offer and the defendants lawyer seems happy with it, but the defendant says, “I can’t do fifteen years” to which McCoy replies, “well, do what you can”.
Another good comeback could be:
“I can’t do fifteen years”
“Maybe you can - there’s only one way to find out.”
The factual answer to this is I believe that your wages can be garnished forever. Criminal fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so they just follow you around and some percentage of any money you get can be seized to pay them.
If you never fully pay the fine then it will last until your death.
It will remain as a judgement against the person until it is paid back. For most people this means it will never be paid back because the person is never going to be able to make that much money. But if they come into some money through an inheritance, insurance settlement, or something like that, the court will take that money and apply it to the judgement.
This is sometimes the case with financial fraud cases. A fraudster bilks millions from investors and is ordered to pay it back as restitution. But since the fraudster can only make that much money through fraud, they won’t be able to make enough money legitimately to pay it back, especially if they are going to be spending some time in jail. But having the judgement means that if the fraudster ever comes into a windfall or tries to retrieve some hidden money from the fraud, the court can seize those assets and apply it to the judgement.
In the case of OJ he lost his heisman trophy. He was forced to sell it.
I always wonder, what’s the value of a trophy once it’s sold to someone else? After that, isn’t it just another run-of-the-mill statue?
It’s inscribed or at least has provenance. It’s a Heisman. There have only been 86 ever.
This guy seem pretty stuck. 
Is the Guardian now stooping to these dumb clickbait headlines that are immediatly contradicted by the content of the article?
It appears the year 9999 was arbitrarily set because it was the highest possible date allowed by the online system.
So he’s not stuck there for 8,000 years or any set amount of time. That’s obviously just the way the computer system handles the fact that he’s stuck there until he fulfills a condition - to pay the child support he owes, and presumably to give the Israeli authorities some kind of financial guarantee that he will continue paying it if he leaves the country.
As for the amount owed - it says £1,200 per month for each of two children until they are 18. That hardly seems like an outrageous amount. For the entire 18 years that’s around £500k, not the £1.8 million in the headline.
tl;dr - deadbeat Dad who owes child support is lying; the journalism is crap
Perhaps the Guardian has a sense of humour, and they assume most of their readers do too?