Tuesday, August 09, 2022

Chronicles of Twatrick: As time goes by ...

Once upon a time:

And how's that working out? Oh, right:


Mon, Aug 8 2022

 From: Enforcement of Money Judgment JU <enforcementofmoneyjudgment@gov.sk.ca>

Good Afternoon,

I have been in contact with the judgment debtor's employer regarding the garnishment. The employer is processing the garnishment accordingly. We are expecting to receive the first garnishment cheque in our office shortly. 



Government of Saskatchewan

Deputy Sheriff, Sheriff Central Office

Sheriff Services, Ministry of Justice

So ... there's that.

P.S. It is worth noting that we are going on 13 years since I first filed my Notice of Libel for malicious defamation against Lloydminster's Patrick Ross, when he was offered the chance to make all this go away for less than $10,000 and removing all of that defamation from the Intertoobz and simply apologizing. Instead, here we are:

So ... there's that.


Anonymous said...

How much are you allowed to take from Twatsy's paycheque? Will it even be enough to cover the accruing interest on what he owes you?

CC said...

Anon @ 8:00 AM: An excellent question. In Saskatchewan, 70% of your wages are exempt from garnishment (meaning you can keep 70%, leaving 30% to be garnished for the creditor). I'm not sure if that's before or after deductions, but given that Patrick's debt to me is increasing at around $500 per month, that means if garnishment yields less than $500 per month, then that would not even be covering the interest. But it's worse than that.

As I understand it, the sheriffs charge to enforce a garnishment order, the cost being maybe $100-$200 per month, that charge being added to what Patrick owes me. So, really, Patrick's debt to me is increasing by $600-700 per month, so if garnishment doesn't cover that, again, he's not even keeping up with the interest charges.

Hilariously, then, Patrick could be having his wages garnished even as what he owes me is increasing. That has to suck.

P.S. Someone familiar with the process of garnishment recently told me something interesting. She suggested that, if the above is what is happening, then the smart move on Patrick's part would be to engage in a settlement discussion and, at the very least, *volunteer* to pay on a monthly basis what is being forcibly garnished from him. The upside to that would be that, even if Patrick is handing over the same amount, he would not be incurring the sheriff's additional monthly enforcement charges.

Given that that would be the *smart* move for Patrick, I think we can all agree that it will never happen.

Anonymous said...

He probably could have got away without paying you by removing his defamation and saying he's sorry. You may have chosen to continue pursuing it, but continuing to keep his nose clean during ensuing years would likely make your case much more difficult. His ongoing foolishness is what annoys courts.
Of course I could also speculate about what would have happened, had life on earth been based on silicon instead of carbon.

CC said...

Anon @ 9:39 AM: There is zero chance Patrick could have gotten away with paying me nothing, given the severity of the defamation, and the obvious malice behind it. He was absolutely going to have to hand over money, the only question was how much.

RossOwesDay said...

Great news! If Twatsy won't pay his debts, the state should force him.

What are the tax implications for Twatrick? Will he have to pay income tax on earnings that are later garnished? In theory, he probably should. The provincial and federal governments should not be deprived of tax revenue just because Twatsy is a malicious defamer who pathetically attempts to evade his substantial financial responsibilities.

Twatsy's yearly income is probably quite modest, so the tax rulings could make the difference between income being in the lowest income tax bracket, and not being taxed at all. In 2022, the standard federal income tax deduction for a single person will be $12,950.

Anonymous said...

But I thought you were supposed to be upset about something cuz Twatsy said "Robert Day upset because something something ultimatum"? Projection, perhaps?

CC said...

Anon @ 1:18 PM: This is another one of those maddeningly vague Patrick-flavoured pronouncements, "It turns out that a certain someone is annoyed because someone else did a certain something related to another something ...". My only gripe is that, for now, I am restricted to taking only 30% of Patrick's income. Other than that, I'm doing all right, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Figured as much - if I had to guess he's probably desperately fishing for a reaction that he thinks will result in some sort of "gotcha" moment type admission, which isn't gonna happen, obviously!

Anonymous said...

The sun is shining, I am healthy, and Twatsy Ross gets to take responsibility for his actions.

Wonderful day today.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, today is also the day of "The Trade" in which the Edmonton Oilers traded away Wayne Gretzky. Today must really be a bad day for Twatsy Ross.