That is all.
JULY 16 UPDATE: Man, this post is getting some engagement in terms of comments so you might want to check back on occasion to see the new stuff.
INTO THE WAYBACK MACHINE, SHERMAN ... This would be the good old days when Patrick lied about hiring a lawyer, then was quite confident he needed to pay me nothing.
And how did that work out? Oh, right ...
21 comments:
It is worth noting that the EMJA lets you garnish only 30% of someone's wages, but you have the right to argue that you're entitled to more, given that Patrick has so little in the way of expenses. You should file a motion arguing for at least 50%.
Way ahead of you, Anon ... I've known this for a while, and am preparing a motion to request exactly this. It will be based on that Patrick has no dependents and no meaningful expenses (rent, mortgage, etc.). And also that, according to eyewitness reports, he lives off of his father's credit card. And I've been told that, given his massive debt to me and his legal history of refusing to pay and refusing to obey court orders, he will get little sympathy from the Court.
At this point, Patrick's weaselly dishonesty and years of arrogance and telling the Court to fuck off and die in a ditch are coming back to haunt him in the biggest way.
I'll keep y'all posted.
Depending on how much you can garnish, how can Patrick afford to keep working in northern Alberta? He has to be living somewhere, a hotel, a hostel, renting a room from someone. So what happens if he can't even keep enough money to pay for where he's staying?
Good question, Anon 8:19. As an unskilled grunt with a spotty resume, Twatsy is probably working as a swamper for FluidPro, or something else menial that pays in the $20/hour range. Then, he has to pay for temporary accommodation, as well as gas to commute from Lloydminster to Peace Country. On top of that, there's Twatsy's gluttonous $21 restaurant burger habit. Even before this garnishment order, we were dubious that Reprobate Ross was even breaking even in Grande Prairie.
Question for CC: Could Ken Ross get in trouble for giving Twatsy his credit card? On top of that, it is quite sad that Ken is supporting his hillbilly son, but apparently not his hillbilly daughter Penny Ross of Lashburn, Sask. Penny is a single mother getting stiffed on child support by a deadbeat ex-husband. She must be furious that Twatsy is draining the family coffers.
I thought he was going to make your lawyer cry on the stand (Why a legal team member would take the stand is beyond me), and that he had a lawyer that told him he'd never have to pay you?
If this isn't the greatest kick in the balls. I'm about to reply to Patrick's latest motion, and now that's he's facing garnishment at work, how could he possibly pay costs and damages to me?
This is why we're seeking surety. Patrick can't afford to pay attention let alone costs. I have no issue taking this to trial simply to embarrass him in court, but I want to be assured someone's going to pay my costs.
I'm convinced Patrick's trying to ruin his life. There's no other plausible explanation for letting his life go to complete shit. When one won't pick up a phone to call the OSB simply to ascertain if I'm telling the truth about his inability to file this suit or not because that call will fuck up whatever life you remain to have, it's a house of cards just waiting to fall.
I couldn't live like that. I simply couldn't.
I'm betting the moment Patrick's first cheque is garnished, he quits his job, which will further complicate his life. Patrick's getting very close to turning a civil matter into a criminal one if he keeps taking actions to evade paying. The Sask Sheriffs will eventually tire of chasing him and will take more concrete steps to knowing where Patrick is at all times because he'll be in a cell.
We're imagining Twatrick filming his stupid podcast using a smartphone Ken smuggled into jail up his ass at Twatsy's behest, from his cell at the Peace River Correctional Centre.
RogueNerdOne: Legally, a company cannot fire someone because their wages are being garnished, so if Patrick quits his job just to spite me, he will be ineligible for EI since he quit without cause. So that's just another boot to the nads.
Also, if Patrick could somehow come up with significant surety, that would just bolster my argument that I should be able to collect more via garnishment.
I suspect Patrick is seriously screwed at this point, and it's not over.
How does the garnishment affect what the SK sheriffs were doing before, which was seizing everything in Patrick's bank account? It seems that, under garnishment, you're going to get only 30% of what Patrick earns (unless you convince the court to give you more). Weren't you better off before being able to seize everything?
Anon @ 12:42 PM: Ah, you noticed that, did you? Yes, theoretically, it seems I might have been better off before being able to take *everything* from Patrick's bank account. The downside to that, though, is that it *seems* Patrick began redirecting his paycheque elsewhere so there was nothing to take. With garnishment, though, Patrick can't play these games anymore since the employer deducts my share right off of Patrick's paycheque. So while I might be getting less, it's far more reliable and is immune from Patrick's childish attempts to conceal his income from me.
Also, I am not done with forcing Patrick to sit for questioning under oath to answer questions about possible assets and inheritance and farmland. So the garnishment might end up being the least of Patrick's worries. And, from what I read, Patrick has a Peter Skinner-sized pile of trouble bearing down on him from another direction.
I suspect Patrick's life is about to get a lot, lot worse.
I wanted it noted I offered Patrick a way out that wouldn't have cost him a cent, but he was typical Patrick and insisted he was going to win this handily.
Every single person who's read his 27 page diatribe has come to the same conclusion. He's distorting what I've said for his own agenda that makes readers shake their head with how many conclusions he has that make little sense to what was actually said. I gave him a deadline of Friday before close of business, and he filed at 4:45pm. I bet he wrote that after waking up from a bucket of chicken coma.
If he didn't like what I said in my SOD, why has it taken 9 months to get a motion going? He's not even taking his own filing seriously and it shows.
He wants to say I'm lying. Fine. I can show all he's done online is lie, harass, and impersonate others. He has a 15 year history of denying accusations with fantastical excuses which get slammed by justice's across the country.
The man's a fraud in his own mind, let alone every else's.
Interesting facts to learn.
This has been a very good day. Thank you, ROD & CC.
RogueNerdOne: Ironically, I also offered Patrick a cheap way to get out of all this, way back in 2010. Even before I got my judgment, Patrick was given the chance to make all this go away by just paying my legal fees at the time, apologizing and removing all that defamation. That would have cost him less than $10,000 at that time. Unsurprisingly, he refused and insulted my lawyer.
The rest is history.
I've been following this for a while and always thought you were just being facetious about the possibility of this lasting long enough for Patrick's father to die so that Patrick's inheritance became relevant. Now I accept that this is a distinct possibility, since I just don't see any way Patrick will ever be able to pay this off soon.
Depending on how much you can garnish every month, will that even cover the interest on Patrick's debt? It seems that, even after garnishment, Patrick won't owe you any less. He could be stuck in massive debt and bankruptcy for the rest of his life.
At this point, what are his options? Can he declare bankruptcy again while still being bankrupt?
Anon @ 11:31 AM: I'll respond to a couple of your points.
First, no, Patrick has no option to file for a second bankruptcy while still an undischarged bankrupt from the first one. Patrick was given a *ridiculously* favourable conditional discharge order (CDO) back in 2014 -- so favourable I was tempted to appeal to make it at least a little more painful for him. So he got an early Christmas gift from the bankruptcy registrar and all he had to do was honour his obligations and obey the terms of the CDO in terms of $200 monthly payments. Instead, he arrogantly refused to follow any court orders at all, which is how he ended up where he is today, with no options other than most likely being an indentured, undischarged bankrupt for the rest of his life. It is safe to say, given Patrick's spectacular hubris, he has pretty much blown every chance of getting out of this inexpensively.
Also, Patrick's *current* debt to me is not his only problem. As you might have picked up on, Peter Skinner is about to lower the boom on Patrick in court, and Skinner will almost certainly be awarded significant costs, so that's just going to add more to Patrick's debt. (Patrick is convinced he has a slam-dunk case against Skinner, but he refuses to accept that the OSB has already sent him a letter telling him he has no standing to sue. Patrick refuses to accept this and brags that he knows better, so we'll see how that ends for him.)
Finally, I am making sure that Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) has not forgotten Patrick, particularly with respect to the long-standing rumour of that family having once owned some valuable SK farmland (but, as I hear it, having sold it back in 2016). If any of that land was at any time in Patrick's name, he had no legal right to sign it over as part of any sale; if he did, that would constitute misconduct of bankruptcy, for which he could be penalized *big* money (think tens of thousands of dollars) depending on the value of the parcel of land that was in Patrick's name.
So you see, Patrick's debt to me barely scratches the surface of the trouble bearing down on him. And to think he could have gotten out of this years ago for just a few thousand dollars. That's what happens when you're convinced you're the smartest man on the net, but are instead a total imbecile.
Why Patrick didn't take this deal is beyond me. He thinks he is smart for not taking the deal. Pretty sure a lawyer would have told you to take the deal.
If Patrick's upcoming court appearances gets in the way of Patrick doing his job, can his employer fire him?
Anon @ 5:35 AM: (Man, what are you people doing up so early?)
I've already addressed this a couple of times -- *legally*, someone cannot be fired or punished for having their wages garnished. On the other hand, given the upcoming hearings Patrick has related to both myself and Peter Skinner, it's entirely possible that Patrick will need to ask for time off on a regular basis to participate in hearings or discovery or questioning under oath, and possibly even have to travel back to Lloydminster for some reason. And if that starts interfering with Patrick's ability to do his job, then it's possible that his employer can argue that Patrick simply cannot be counted on to be a reliable employee, and will can his sorry ass.
At the moment, as Skinner explained, he is filing (tomorrow, I believe) to have Patrick's idiotic defamation action thrown out, so that's one hearing Patrick will be required to attend. Depending on how that works out, there may be another hearing related to that action itself.
From my perspective, in addition to garnishing Patrick's wages, I will be filing a motion to increase what I am allowed to garnish, and I am fairly confident I will win that. On top of that, I will be applying to force Patrick to come in to be questioned under oath about his last several years of finances. And I am encouraging the OSB to insist that Patrick fill out his last several years of *legally-required* financial statements -- something he has not done for years.
In short, Patrick should count on spending quite some time over the next few months in hearings of one form or another, all of which he is going to lose. It will be up to his employer to decide whether continuing to employ Patrick is worth the trouble of constantly rejigging the work schedule to accommodate Patrick's absences.
P.S. In order to avoid some of the above, Patrick always has the option of abandoning his imbecilic action against Peter Skinner. However, if he does that, he will be on the hook for discontinuance costs, and that should be several thousand dollars. In short, even throwing up his hands and withdrawing his action is going to be expensive for Patrick. He really has fucked himself thoroughly at this point. Such is the price of hubris.
If you end up collecting only 30% of Patrick's paycheques, will that even cover the interest on what he owes you?
Anon @ 6:22 AM: That's a good question, I hadn't thought of that. If I simply accept the EMJA-mandated 30% of what I am allowed to garnish of Patrick's salary, then Patrick would need to be netting almost $1700/month to provide me with around $500, which would just cover the interest.
So, depending on what Patrick is earning, it is entirely possible that garnishment of his wages will not make a dent in what he owes me. Man, that would suck, but that is the choice Patrick made when he made it clear years ago he would never, ever, ever discuss a settlement with me, even after I offered him a ridiculously generous proposal.
Consequences of your actions and all that.
P.S. I also believe that this garnishment action is a billable item for the Saskatchewan sheriffs, the cost of which is simply added to what Patrick owes me. So every time the sheriffs have to do something related to Patrick, the cost of that is added to Patrick's debt, so his total debt is assuredly increasing at more than just the 5% interest. That also has to suck.
All: Regarding the above and garnishment, I have already started the process of preparing an application to ask for more than the EMJA-mandated 30% of Patrick's income. I will be asking for a minimum of 50%, and I think I have a pretty good argument for that, as I will point out that Patrick is not married and has no kids, and lists his primary residence as his father's house in Lloydminster, where I suspect he is not even asked to contribute to food or utilities, so he has very little in the way of expenses.
Ironically, the standard way someone would fight such an application would be to provide a detailed list of expenses, at which point I would suddenly have a very good idea of where all of Patrick's money is going, which would only work in my favour. In short, Patrick is screwed either way.
If Patrick tries to claim expenses of paying his father for, say, rent or something, that's a red flag right there. It's a common scam to hand over money to family members or friends and claim that they're legitimate expenses, just to protect that money from seizure. It's especially obvious if Patrick claims that he just started paying such expenses recently. A court wouldn't have any patience with that claim, and wouldn't count that as legitimate expenses, especially if (as you say) Patrick is living off his father's credit card.
Post a Comment