Apparently, because previous collection procedures in Saskatchewan were antiquated and cumbersome, the newer EMJA really stripped things down and streamlined the process, so whereas one used to file independent actions to seize property versus income versus bank account, the newer EMJA basically addresses the issue, "So, someone owes you money, do they?", and rolls all of that into one tidy little action, so there is some real benefit in now knowing where Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen works, as I can now both take his paycheque and empty whatever ends up in his bank account simultaneously, so if anyone knows where Patrick is currently employed, why, yes, that information would be most useful. But it turns out there's an amusing wrinkle.
I have been "informed" by one of my anonymous tipsters (who refuses to identify himself/herself) that Patrick is no longer employed, and for a very curious reason -- he was allegedly fired for insisting that he be paid under the table so as to protect his salary from, well, me. Let me be absolutely clear -- I have seen nothing to substantiate this claim and it strikes me as more than a little suspect, but this is the claim and I suppose it would not surprise anyone if it were true.
It is definitely believable that Patrick is unemployed again (for one reason or another), but if he is still putting in an honest 3 or 4 hours a day of work, it turns out that knowing where that is would be useful information, as the sheriffs would then have the right to garnish his wages at the source and clean out his bank account at the same time, which would be absolutely delightful.
So there's your new mission, kids -- "Where's Twatsy?" And as to what's in it for you, well, just the satisfaction of being a good citizen and bringing a long-time malfeasant to justice.
"Malfeasant": Look it up.
8 comments:
If Patrick is demanding he be paid "under the table" for his labours, he's very quickly going to find out that a lot of employers who will agree to such arrangements are as unreliable about paying their obligations as he is.
MgS: I want to emphasize again that this is just a rumour, with no evidence to back it up. It could very well be total nonsense.
It certainly fits in with rumours that he's been sleeping in his car. If all that is true, it makes some sense.
MgS: As I have mentioned on occasion, it is entirely possible for Patrick to avoid his financial obligations, perhaps to go as far as simply refusing to work, just for the satisfaction of not having anything I can collect from him. And sure, technically, that would work -- I can't seize assets from someone if that someone truly has no assets.
But remember that, every month, what Patrick owes me increases by a few hundred dollars, and *eventually* there will be a reckoning. It may take months or years, but there will be a reckoning, particularly when Patrick's remaining parent passes away, and Patrick thinks he's going to inherit the house.
I no longer need to aggressively chase Patrick; now I just need to wait. And I am a patient man.
Could have just said he is not vaccinated.
Hard to fire someone for demanding under the table payment if they continue to show up and you continue paying the normal way. Well at least hard to fire for cause and not pay severance. They could fire him just because they don't like him, or no reason at all, and pay the severance, by their usual method of pay.
He would need to find an employer who still pays by cheque. (Yes, few and far between these days.)
And then...
Hellooo Money Mart.
Since you can seize 'assets' does that mean you could seize Patsy's vehicle? I mean, I'm not sure you'd want to get stuck with a ten-year-old Ford Escape full of fast food wrappers that smells like a goat has been living in it, but I wonder if that is an option. It would certainly make it easier to keep tabs on Patsy - without a vehicle, he's either at work or the homeless shelter.
Rev: Typically, no matter how aggressive the collection, there are certain things that are exempt from seizure, and a personal vehicle is almost always one of them (to ensure you can still get to work, go shopping, etc.).
As you say, it's probably worth next to nothing and, truth be told, if Patrick needs it to work, I would not want to prevent him from having gainful employment as that is one of the ways I can continue collecting, so he's welcome to keep his fast food wrapper-infested piece of junk for all I care.
I'm digging in for the long term and focusing on Patrick's eventual inheritance, and how I make sure he never sees any of it. Then we'll see how much his family loves him when he wants to move in with them.
Post a Comment