I didn't think it would ever come to this...but it did!!

I follow the advice to fill out the financial questionnairs.  They clearly show lack of ability to pay any substantial amount (or any for that matter) like many of us on this forum.  Not good enough.

I'm employed so expected to pay even if it compromises other bills.  So, now it has come to the point that I'm being served (with what--we'll see).  A process server has contacted my home to know when I will be around.

I blame only myself thinking that it would not happen to me.  The advice on here is that it is just a threat--nothing ever comes from it.  I was hoping that would be the case!!!  No..HRDC is going for a wage garnishment I believe...have to see what the server brings me.

I've learned that showing them that you are living on air isn't gonna do...gotta come up with something.

I acknowledged the debt, did what was requested (fill out fif) but offering no repayment arrangement (hoping to protect my family and myself from further expense) is a mistake on my part. 

I hope those that read this can learn from my mistakes.

Most process servers don't warn you when they're dropping in.

It COULD be another tactic. And it won't be a wage garnishment. It would have to be a claim. They could conceivably serve you with a request that you sign a consent judgment and a guarantee that they won't execute it as long as you maintain a payment arrangement. DON'T CONSENT!

If it's a claim (a lawsuit), take it and go to court. Whatever payment arrangement is imposed by the court will be based upon your ability to pay (and insist on a payment hearing, don't just let them execute on a judgment). It is likely to be far more reasonable than the one they come up with on their own. Either way there will be a judgment; this way the payment arrangement is not their decision, but will come from a judge.

Truth be told, though, I suspect that no one is about to serve you with a damn thing. I believe that they're softening you up to accept a payment arrangement.

I'd call them and ask where you can go to pick up whatever documents they claim they want to serve you with. If they say that's impossible, you know they're jerking you around; every process server would like you to do his job for him.

If it turns out to be a crock, learn from this. CA's are ruthless sleazebags devoid of intelligence or any right to associate with the human race. They shouldn't be permitted to share the air we breath with their betters. And their betters are anyone with human DNA.

Islander,

I like your post.

I sit and play the guessing game whether its a statement of caim to sue for a wage garnishment or consent judgement (I will definitely not be signing).

I have a paralegal friend who is giving great guidance.  I kind of look forward to going to court if need be.  Make the goverment look as stupid as I can!

The next few days should be very interesting!!

They CAN'T get a garnishment without a judgment. So if they don't have one, that HAS to be the first step!

Be tough and recognise that everything they do is intended to demean and belittle you. Don't let those lowlives assume the moral high ground. They are bottom feeding parasites.

I've said it before, but believe me, it's true...THERE IS NO MORAL COMPONENT TO THIS DEBT. You are not a bad, lazy or irresponsible person. Being unable to meet the terms of a business obligation is a business problem. You may have to restructure your debts or repayment schedule; that's done every day in business. It's money. It's a loan. Loans that can't be repiad as planned are rethought or defaulted on every day. Corporations find themselves unable to meet their obligations and the debts are retired, restructured or just tossed; the principals of the companies lose no sleep over it and their families don't go without in order to meet obligations that have moved out of reach.

You do your best. You behave with honour and integrity. The CA's can get bent. They have neither the morality nor the intelligence to judge humans.

Let us know, okay?

Well, well,well...

The process server served me tonight.  Plaintiff's claim.  Government of Canada wants their money.  Plaintiff's claim outlines the reasons for the claim (some of which are bogus--like refusal to pay--bull !! I want to pay and have stated so just not in the time frame acceptable to them).

So, my next step is to file a defence claim.  Maybe it will go to court and maybe it won't.  All depends if HRDC accepts my claim.  Am in a better positon now to make better payments as the husband just got a job.  Yeehoo!!!

I'll keep those updated whoever is interested in knowing what the process is all about.

Wish me luck!

Great idea!

Defend the action on the grounds that you did not refuse to pay. Start collecting all your correspondence to support your testimony that you made reasonable attempts.  Judgment will almost certainly be found against you anyway, but you can request a court payment hearing. That way any payment arrangement will be court ordered; the CAs can't change the rules, they can't even call you if the payments are being made and if you screw up, they still have to go back to court to have the arrangement varied.

Keep us posted.

definately keep us posted on how things go.  your first hand account of how things happen in the legal end could definately benefit others.  that sucks about having to go through all the hoopla though.

i wonder how they define refusal to pay...if i am unemployed and have no income, is it considered a refusal to pay despite having no income to give them ?

 Kwel,

 I wish I could do this for you at no cost, Kwel. Unfortunately, it is a lot of work to do. I can get you out of this predicament and into a more productive limelight, but there are costs associated with it.

 Islander is right about the judgment issue. They will still get their judgement unless you can prove that you do not owe it. The defense can be stricken quickly if they feel it is not strong enough - or is being motioned to simply stall the matter. As for the court repayment hearing (conference), this would only happen if you reside in PEI or New Brunswick. The repayment acceptance is completely up to the Crown in this matter.

 Unfortunately, you can contest the fact that the collection agency has broken rules such as refusing to accept payment, but this would have to be proven. If it is not noted in their account data base that they refused to accept repayment, then it didn't happen in their eyes. Collectors break the rules, most certainly, but they are not going to say for the record in written format that they broke the laws or rules. It is your word against theirs unless you can prove it.

 Your Para-Legal buddy should be able to get you off the block. I can do it for you in as little as 2 hours if all else fails - guaranteed.

Johnny

John, I don't know about the rest of the provinces, but in B.C either the creditor, the debtor or the judge can request a repayment hearing as well.

 Yes, Ferren, you are right, but I think this would be more conducive to cases of those who owe traditional consumer debt rather than the Crown. In small Claims cases, for instance, the adjudicator will ask the defendant (if present) if they are willing to pay the debt, and if the answer is yes, then the adjudicate pretty much asks the plaintiff why the heck they are in front of the bench - and to go out in the back room somewhere and hash out a repayment arrangmement.     

In cases of Crown debt litigation, you see less of these ativities though. Islander is right also as the judge has the final say in the matter. The only thing is that the Crown is VERY influential, if you know what I am saying here. If the debtor is dissatisfied with the decision, then the right to appeal is there.

 Islander, look at cases wheras CRA (Canada Customs and Revenue) sue and individual and attach a 40-50% wage assignment. There are no "repayment or settlement conferences" behind closed doors from the bench what so ever. Also, look at cases wheras HRDC imposes the same for EI overpayment claims.

 Ferren,

 Also ...

 I have learned that BC law is VERY different than most other provinces. PEI and NB carry similar traits.

I think part of the confusion is this:

There are a number of opportunities to settle or work out an arrangement provided by various jurisdictions. Those opportunities are provided in different ways, at different points in the litigation process. Johnny's absolutely right about the process as far as the pre-judgment settlement conferences or discoveries are concerned. In some jurisdictions the Court allows or even insists on a process of quasi-judicial arbitration before a case goes before the bench. In those cases, the Crown WILL NOT settle and rarely accepts an arrangement and NEVER one outside of the guidelines.

Once a judgment has been obtained, however, it's a different story. In most jurisdictions, any party to the litigation can request a hearing at which the judgment debtor's financial situation is examined under oath and rules of evidence. Based on the evidence, the judge will then impose a payment schedule and have it registered as a Court Order.

Failure to comply is contempt of Court. However, the judgment creditor must apply to the Court for remedies in the event of a default. Sometimes, if the judgment creditor is persuasive, the Court will grant an Execution (on chattels and funds, not your life) Order on an ex parte  application. It's best therefore, if you're going to default on a Court Order, to get your application for a new hearing in before the creditor does.

You definitely want to get into that hearing. If you don't, the CA could issue garnishments on bank accounts, wages, (if you're a contract employee, that could be 100% of the contract) or executions against chattels, Siezure and Sale Orders...anything they can think of.

Having said all that, the post-judgment payment hearing might just be the last opportunity to get a fair and manageable repayment schedule. It's a hell of a way to do it; it costs you legal costs, it wastes the Court's time with something that should have been done around a conference table with respect and dignity on both sides and it puts a judgment on your record. None of this would be necessary if the creditor was reasonable and non-confrontational in the first place. One would think that the Courts would eventually get fed up with adjudicating these matters for the same creditor and hearing the same story from the Defendants day after day.

In any case, the payment schedule will be one that can be handled. Just make sure that when you present your evidence of financial condition to the Court, you include EVERYTHING. Before the hearing, give any savings or bonds or investments (except RRSPs) to a family member or someone you trust. Then fill out the financial statement. Include reasonable entertainment (sports facilities, one movie a month, cable TV), cigarette allowance, special needs, medicine, etc. If, after that, your budget simply does not have room for ANY payment, the judge might trim some of the fat, order a token payment and order you back in six months for a reassessment. But if you genuinely can't pay, unlike a CA, he won't demand that you do. Remember, though, you'll be exposing all this in public and under oath. It's no fun, but it clears up the ambiguity that exists with a CA.

And the CA HAS to leave you alone while you are in compliance with the Court Order.

Began the process to file my defendant's claim.  Will  offer a repayment plan.  As well as, some other items to claim/defend.  If HRDC does not like it.......GOOD........I'll have my time in court.

There are some oddities with their claim that the paralegal noticed. Hopefully they will realize this when they view my claim and save themselves from looking like real retards in court.

Anyways, I'm pretty positive about the whole thing.  Still stressed out but positive.

Go get'em Tiger!

Keep us posted...we're here to help if we can.

Thanks Islander,

Your posts make me laugh all most every time.  I look for your posts just so I can have a good laugh.

I will get'em and get'em good .

Thanks for your support....much appreciated!!!!!!!

You make my heart go pitterpat  !

They'll wish they hadn't rattled your cage!

I think you are right Spirit.  I remember the lawyer who is representing the HRDC saying,"I must have this cleared up by Nov 1, 2004".

Definitely a limitation issue here with me.

I filed my defence and am waiting to hear back from "the dark side" ha ha.

Keep me updated with your situation...it will be very interesting to see what happens with both of our cases.

Why a Motion to Dismiss??  I'm missing something . 

I have to call my paralegal and see what is happening with my claim...I guess HRDC are still within their time period to respond so here I sit waiting...waiting....waiting.

Hopefully they accept my proposal.  Then i can rest a little and focus on the better things in life.

Could mine be barred and I not know it??  (quite possible that I not know...hard to admit to)

Sure, it's possible. They don't tell you when they've run out of time to collect.

Under the Canada Student Loan Act, if you haven't acknowledged or payed and no action has been filed in 6 years, the statute has kicked in. Other loans are less clear cut.

If they applied a payment to your account and you never acknowledged the debt, it's fraud. Chase it down and have them charged with a criminal offense.

And while I agree that we should stick together, I don't see this as a generational thing. I'm a Boomer, not an Xer and have gone through comparable trauma at the hands of the same maggots who hurt you.

I feel that the generational thing can be more divisive than inclusive.

THANK you Islander. I read that post and thought...here I go, left out AGAIN. I think The Spirit will find that a large number of us forum members do not fit the age demographic, and that is part of the reason the government ignores us. We don't "fit" the statistics because we didn't do things in our lives when we were "supposed" to and therefore, we don't exist. And, therefore, there IS no problem.

When I was in University, I couldn't apply for 75% of student jobs because of the age limitations...Excuse me? I need job-related experience too! But, I was over 25, therefore, I had no problem getting a job, according to statistics. What? I was always the last hired for summer work!! When I was a Summer Employment Officer for the HRDC, I faced mature students crying because they couldn't find a job to pay the rent or feed their kids.

And now, at age 43, I'm not supposed to relate to the problems faced by graduates? I'm supposed to be concerned about my RRSPs, my mortgage, Freedom 55, yadda. Honey, I ain't ever retiring, so I have no reason to be concerned.

I think when society stops categorizing people according to age and deal with ISSUES that perhaps they will finally be dealt with sufficiently.

Poly

Sorry, Spirit...didn't mean to go all apesh*t on you!!

It's just that the whole age thing has been a pet peeve of mine for years...When people say, "I'm such and such an age, I should be doing blank," it rankles me. I've been shunned by other people because I wasn't "acting my age," but doing what was right for me at that moment in time. Going to university late was one of those things...I obviously was "avoiding my responsibilities."

How boring this world would be if we ALL did the same thing at EXACTLY the same time...sigh...

Poly

 Islander,

 You wrote:

 "If they applied a payment to your account and you never acknowledged the debt, it's fraud. Chase it down and have them charged with a criminal offense."

 It is not unlawful for a government or lending sector to apply monies to a defaulted debt that are "seized" from either a bank account or an income tax/GST rebate. The HRDC will attach a lien to a defaulted borrower's I-Tax and GST rebates to then have them applied to the defaulted loan. These transactions are warrented under the "statutory right of off-set" per the CSLA and CSLFA. A bank holding a defaulted student loan can also claim right of off-set towards monies in a debtor's bank account (if the account is housed at the same institution that owns the debt).

 So, if any lending sector  performs any of these "involuntary" transactions, it is not a criminal offense, by any means.

 I think what you are trying to say is that IF a lending sector "takes" money from a bank account or government rebates of some sort, and applies these monies to the debt, it CANNOT constitute as acknowledgment. This is the whole truth of the matter.

 A bank that takes a payment from a bank acoc**t "involuntarily" and applies it to a debt, it does not constitute as acknowledgment because you didn't make the payment. The same goes for CSL's regarding Income tax and GST liens.

 Johnny

 If a collection agency were to make a payment towards a student loan nearing a limitation issue to mislead or obstruct the government, debtor, or system, it could be proven very easily. From what you are descirbing, you are saying that a collection agency will intentially make a payment "for" the specific debtor to reset the limitation period. If something is being pulled from the agency's suspense account, and finds a cheque issued by that specific borrower and is applied to the account and clears.. that is not illegal. 

 If the agency applies a payment submitted by an "unknown" party to someone else's student loan, then it can be traced and proven erroneous. Collection agencies are pretty bold in how they conduct business but I doubt they would go that far. There is no way to hide such a transaction - especially when it it involves trust accounts and how they are measured/monitored. If a debtor were to call on the issue and say" Hey! A payment was applied to my debt that I did not make" ..then it can be easily proven by revealing the payment source, who posted the payment, and locating the receipt associated with that erroneous payment.

 Collectors, tracers, and non-management figures have no access to suspense accounts that hold such items. So, if things like this were to occur, it would be a management figure doing the nasty deed. 

 Islander,

 Duly noted. But if you know that this is actually happening all the time and can substantiate it, why don't you report this business and consumer Services Division of the Federal Government?

 I have actually seen cases wheras a client of mine had this "mysterious" payment applied to a loan but not from a collection agency. All I was trying to emphasize on is that it can be easily proven IF it occurs. THe real issue is exactly what you had stated ... "if debtor's knew their stuff".

Why don't I report it? Number of reasons. In no particular order here are some of them:

• I'm living in Southeast Asia...it's hard to follow up on that kind of complaint.
• Substantiate it? How? I came here with a passport, $500, the contents of one duffel bag and nothing else. No records, nothing.
• When I did make an iussue of it back in Canada, the investigation into the allegations went like this:

Gov't Investigator:   Do you guys ever apply money to an account without the debtors knowledge or permission in order to defeat the statutes of limitations??

CA         &nbs p;         &nbs p; :   Heavens, no!

Gov't         & nbsp;        :    I didn't think so. Sorry to bother you.

• The agencies were then told about my allegations (by the people I reported them to) and I suddenly found that I had a half dozen accounts that I never heard of in collections. Each one was sued and I fought each one and won. Then a half dozen more spurious claims were filed. Cost me two jobs, several businesses I started, all my money, my health, my sanity, my home and my family.
• The very people to whom you would report them are closely associated with the people who hire them and derive the benefit from their crimes.

I'm all for doing the noble thing: I've gone public before only to find that I'm a voice in the wilderness and all those who swore they would back me up just disappeared like frown lines after a botox injection.

I finally pulled myself out of homelessness, drug addiction and a mental breakdown. I have started a life elsewhere and am doing my best to contribute what I can. But I WILL NOT risk it all again.

I concur wholly that what is needed is knowledge. That and solidarity. When a complaint is made, it has to be made to everyone and his dog. Andthe press. If you do it by sending it in just to those who are directly responsible, they will destroy you.

And remember; once your account is in collections, your credibility is almost nil. You have to have a lot of backup and you can't trust anyone who has anything to lose.

Sorry.

 From what I am reading, Islander, this happened to you personally. Correct me if I am wrong.

 Don't take this the wrong way ...but it appears that you had a fair amount of enemies revolving around you at one point. For this, I am deeply grieved for you because you had a mission that was genuine. You still have a genuine mission, indeed.

 Islander, all of us who opose this sort of evil are "just voices crying in the wilderness" - whether you are quoting Isaiah or John The Baptist. To quote Isaiah, "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and rob the poor of my people of their rights ..."

 Homelessness, Drug addiction, near-mental/nervous breakdown have been your misfortunes in life - and you have overcome those obstacles because you are a strong man. A HIGHLY intelligent man, and faithful ... but you tend to carry these weapons that wield anger and resentment. It is understandable, Islander. For what you have been through, it is understandable. For the sake of God, let go of the anger and put your faith where it belongs.  

 You are a much-loved personality, Islander. You will always be welcome by me anywhere-anytime regardless of how we view things. It is all part of learning - sharing - and helping those who truly need it when those tides of time get rough.  

 Sincerely fella,

 Johnny

 Islander,

 Anger and hatred are weapons of mass destruction.

 You wrote:

 "Throughout my ordeal I was sanctimoniously counselled to forgive, accept, and have faith in a higher power. As long as I did that I was brutalised, despised and treated with contempt and derision.

When I finally said "ENOUGH!" and got up, fought back, took no prisoners and embraced my well-earned hatred and rage at the vile subhumans who tortured me and destroyed my life and literally killed people I cared about for their personal profit, I prevailed."

 Read the story of "Job". To make it easier, here is a link:

  http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/job.htm - http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/job.htm

 Hatred does not save you, Islander, because you still hate. What will save you from hatred? If hatred and anger are the purest things in your life, and they are your "weapons" that defend you from the evils of this world, how can what you hold sacred be anything but evil? Evil cannot stand against evil, othewrwise that house will fall to the ground and be in ruin.

 Working against something that is evil to make good is what matters.

 Your anger and hatred places you at war with yourself thus you live in darkness.  

 Again, read the book of Job. Big Father, if you are around here anytime soon, add something to this.

 Johnny

i think anger can be a very good thing.

frustration and anger over my health led me to uncover my medical problems and seek treatment.  frustration and anger at a lack of options regarding my loan problems led me here.  anger at the frustration and mistreatment of others has made me seek answers, and occasionally put me in the position to help others on this site. 

now if the anger were all consuming or out of control - that would be a bad thing.  but there is a balance, a controlled anger as mark has alluded to.  i think islander has managed to find inner peace and enjoy life again, and i also think his anger is useful to others as it makes him a valuable resource on the site.  his first hand knowledge and tales of the dealings of the dark side are eye openers to those who think the CA's will play fair (and we all know they usually dont).

anger ?  maybe.  more likely, an intense and driving passion to slay the dragon.

 This is why I say "working against something that is evil to make good is what matters".

 Anger is a term that has many faces. Momof 2, the "anger" you are describing is "frustration" which precipitated "motivation" to focus, act, and do something to make good out of something very bad. The same with you, Mark. And it worked!

 Anger that is precipitated by hatred or jealously, now that is just hatred - and not anger. When something is hated - but solved, the hatred still exists as this planted "seed".somewhere within. There is only one way to get rid of hatred - and that is love and forgiveness EVEN towards those whon you hate.

 Big Father, where art though?

 Johnny

 Johnny

You know, Islander, I sit here reading through these threads and I keep thinking to myself...say something...your an addictions counsellor!  Surely you must have something to say to encourage Islander....all I seem to come up with is that I hear you and I also feel your anger.

Johnny and Mark are absolutely correct about the whole anger thing.  You have every right to feel angry...I would too...use it positively and direct it that way.

And, yes, try to be like Job.  He had incredibly strong faith!!!

 Amen Kwelm. You preach. I will turn da pages.

Here are a few quotes from M. K. Gandhi:

More can be found at: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/Library/LibraryItem.cfm?LibraryID=777 - http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/Library/LibraryItem.cfm?Libra ryID=777

Islander, I'm not sure you are getting the full depth of the meaning of Job.  Jung's "Answer to Job," might clarify some unanswered questions. 

The Book of Job serves as a paradigm for a certain experience of God which has a very special significance for our time.  These experiences come upon man from inside as well as from outside, and it is useless to interpret them rationalistically and thus weaken them by apotropaic means.  It is far better to admit the affect and submit to its violence than to try to escape it by all sorts of intellectual tricks or by emotional value-judgments.  Athough, by giving way to the affect, one imitates all the bad qualities of the outrageous act that provoked it and thus makes oneself guilty of the same fault, that is precisely the point of the whole proceeding: the violence is meant to penetrate to man's vitals, and he to succumb to its action.  He must be affected by it, otherwise its full effect will not reach him.  But he should know, or learn to know, what has affected him, for in this way he transforms the blindness of the violence on the one hand and of the affect on the other into knowledge.  paragraph 562, as quoted in "Transformation of the God-Image: an Elucidation of Jung's Answer to Job," Edward Edinger pp. 35-36

And more about "affect," Edinger writes,

Our affects are the inner manifestations of Yahweh...  If you don't get this you will not understand Answer to Job... But this is very difficult to grasp, because we identify with our affects.  We even call them ours -- "my affect," "my anger," "my love."  It would be more accurate to leave out the personal pronoun.  We tend to identify with our affects and so long as we do that we cannot see them objectively as objects.  If I fall into a rage or a passion of any kind... those phenomena are manifestations of Yahweh...  Yahweh = the unconscious.  Edinger

Islander, you also wrote:

I have a reputation as an activist for social justice causes, I support a half dozen families in my new country,

This is a great thing to do.  How do you decide who you will help?

I never leave the house without making certain that I have a selection of bills to give to beggars wherever I see them.

I don't understand "a selection of bills"?  Are some bills more appropraite than others?  And what is a "beggar"? 

I devote 12 hours a week to teaching poor children literacy skills and 40% of my income is given to social causes that I run myself.

Again, how do you decide which causes to support and run yourself?  There must be some choices, probably even difficult choices, to make when deciding who to help and how much to help. 

... departments that are supposed to deal with poverty issues are riddled with corruption and embezzlement. They all claim to be motivated by kindness and love. I am motivated by rage and hatred. You do the math.

If, kindness and love, say K + L = corruption and embezzlement,

Then, rage and hatred, say R + H = ???

I'm sorry Islander, I wasn't trying to judge you, I was hoping that you could have a look from a different perspective because I tend to agree with Johnny's statement,

Anger and hatred are weapons of mass destruction.

I feel anger, I feel hatred, but to own these sentiments is to become one with them.  When one can transcend these emotions and really try to gain knowledge from these affects, one can truly gain new insights. 

It is great to help people, by giving in whatever fashion one can, so please keep up your contributions. 

I am also appalled by the "missionary,"

who would rather see people starve or suffer illness if they don't want to be baptised.

But I don't see how anger and rage at those who think that they are helping could possibly solve anything.  What if one of those missionary types got beaten and robbed, would you put your anger aside and help them?  What if the person in trouble was a CA?  What if the person in trouble was...?  Can you honestly say that you are not doing exactly as "them" when you discern between those whom you feel needs the help as opposed to those you feel don't?  How do you judge who is deserving of help? 

I have been in a position of needing help, quite a few times honestly.  There was a time in my life when my family had no income whatsoever for a period of six months, if we had been living in the "city," we'd surely become homeless.  Some friends pulled together and helped.  I noticed, and even some studies have shown this, that it was the poorest of them all that helped the most.  I was extremely depressed during this time in my life and I had lots of time to question the motives of those who helped us.  One friend helped because, and she verified this, she had been there and she truly understood what we were going through.  She had the "pay it forward," attitude, thinking that if the tables were turned I'd have done the same thing, or even in some rosier future I would do the same thing.  Her motivation was to pass on the goodness.  Another friend helped because it made her feel good about herself.  She said that by giving she was reminded at how well she was doing.  Her motivation was to feel good.  Another friend helped, she gave me some food and said that she thought if she'd given me cash money I would have spent it on cigarettes.  She was angry, she even said so, that she thougth if we weren't addicted to smoking we'd be better off, she blamed the tobacco manufacturers, the government and even the ones who sold the cigarettes on our demise.  Her motivation was anger and hatred.  I nearly choked on the food she gave us, but we were desperate and had to eat.  The moral of the story?  When you give, whether it be money or time or assistance, you also give a little of what's inside of you, whether you intend to or not.  If you give because of the love you feel for those you help, because of the empathy you feel because you've been there before, or because you just want to make this place a little better, then the one on the receiving end receives more than just money or assistance he/she also receives a little bit of love and compassion.  I just wonder about what else one receives when the help is given out of hate and anger?

Fascinating though thios conversation is, I suspect that it is boring to others and I'm sure Mark will soon put an end to it as being off topic. I will mention a few things though, before we get asked to shut up.

miss3 wrote:  What if one of those missionary types got beaten and robbed, would you put your anger aside and help them?  What if the person in trouble was a CA?  What if the person in trouble was...?  Can you honestly say that you are not doing exactly as "them" when you discern between those whom you feel needs the help as opposed to those you feel don't?  How do you judge who is deserving of help?

I have to say that I find the above quote both hard to understand and, frankly, offensive. Hard to understand because I have no idea what how discerning between those who do and who don't need help is acting like a 3rd party Collection Agency.

Offensive because you ask a question and then blithely proceed as though the answer was a foregone conclusion. And your conclusion is that I would behave in a way that I consider to be morally repugnant and completely alien to my character.

If ANYBODY was in urgent need and I could provide help, I would do it. Period. I have never made a distinction among people's need for help based on their occupation, religion, skin colour, sexual orientation or anything else other than the urgency of their needs.

Do I despise CAs? Anybody with any integrity does.

Do I revile religious bigots who restrict the granting of physical aid to those who agree to espouse their particular cult? Absolutely.

If a person is on fire, do I ask them to fill out a questionaire before I douse them? No. I'm not a Christian missionary.

A human being is a human being and entitled to whatever I, as a brother in the human family can give. Are some of my brothers better than others? Well, duh!

Some are bigots. Some are sociopaths. Some are savages. Some are arrogant, insensitive self-righteous phonies. Some are just narrow minded greedy brutes. I stand on my right, ideed my obligation, to feel rage and hatred for those ones.

Okay, defence was filed on Nov. 11/04. 

I believe "they" have 20 days to respond.  That should bring me to around the end of the month...and I don't expect that "they" would answer any sooner.

Feels good knowing that the paralegal is taking care of it all.  All calls are to be directed to him. 

Anybody want to guess what their response will be.....

The lucky winner will receive...........

We may as well have fun with this!!

They will deny each and every one of your allegations and ask the court to put you to the strict proof thereof.

They will petition the Court for the earliest possible date. If there is a required settlement conference or pretrial in your jurisdiction they will get a quick date. Time for you to round up every piece of documentary evidence you can lay your hands on and start doing your legal homework. Think of witnesses, if you have any to call. Remember that if you don't have the evidence at the pretrial conference, in most jurisdictions it will be inadmissable at trial. So get it together and remember, more is better...you don't have to use it, but you have to have it available.

Keep us posted.

 And the winner is... ISLANDER!!! Hoorah hoorah! Congratulations Mr. Islander (Hopefully not from New York) ... You have just won yourself a lovely vacation to the beautiful tropics of Southeast Asia where you will find peace and tranquility that will loosen your load, so sit back and enjoy the moment .... just because you know you can.

 As part of today's grand prize, you and a guest will be flown to Canada's capital city for a weekend getaway where you will attent the ceremonial lynching of some poor bugger who happens to work for Edulinx who doesn't really give a sh*t.

 Back to you Kwelmm ....

 But seriously, if you cannot prove that you do not owe the money, expect the judgment sometime in the hear future.

I want to thank all those who made this possible.

The collectors, the lawyers and the Law Society. The banks the HRDC, the governments of Canada and the Provinces; the list is too long and full of important contributors to this great moment for me to name them all. I would like to mention everyone who contributed to my education in these esoteric bits of human interaction that we use as a substitute for human decency and compassion.

You like me! You really, really like me!

(And Johnny, are certain the lynching will only be ceremonial? No purple tongue, explosive release of bowel contents, 10 minutes of Charleston at the end of a rope? Oh, well.)

 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 That is just too funny.

This whole legal thing really confuses me sometimes...HRDC is in the middle of taking me to court, have served me their claim and I filed mine and their lawyer still sends me a letter asking for payments?????

What the he** are we going through the motions for then..save themselves the expense of a lawyer!!!

Anyway, they still haven't responded to my claim....and I'm sure the letter they sent is not their answer because they didn't mention anything about receiving or viewing my claim to them.

Confusing...maybe crossed in the mail.  We'll see.

Patience has not come easy for me   .

Nago, your responses are all over the place. Can I ask you to stick to a thread?

And borrowing IS the problem. Student loans are unique, The loans are entered into without the lender being required to have any certainty or even likelihood of one day having the means to repay them. There is an assumption that the borrower will find such means on the strength of the education received, but we're here to tell you that the assumption is bulls hit.

And if the assumption is wrong, the lender won't accept that they be penalised or even accept a loss.. but YOU will be penalised and you will be made to pay one way or another...

Just heard about my case!!!!  Good news!!!!!!!!

HRDC is willing to settle out of court of payments of $50 month and filing a financial questionnaire every 6 months (standard anyway).

Lawyer tried to say that seeking judgement was not out of the question--my paralegal came back with a good response apparently which shut them up!!!!!!!!

Okay...this is my chance...will not screw this one up!!  Definitely considering opening an account just for these payments because they will want post dated cheques.  Or...send monthly money orders.

Spirit....I'm hoping you catch some of this "goodness in the air"!!!

 This is great news.

 Here is what happend in your case...

 The HRDC had no choice but to comply with your offering because there were no limitation issues coming into force. This means that whichever collection agency your CSL was housed at simply referred the account for justice because of inactivity.

 If you were to hit them with this information, the law firm would do their best to counter. HRDC is required to accept repayment arrangements to avoid legal action if it is mutually beneficial to both parties, of course.

If you are required to sign a stipulation, or in other words -  a consent to judgment, this would be the indication that you were being sued due to a limitation issue arising.

 So, your problem was not as complex in relation to "limitation issues" as oposed to an inactivity period. What really sucks is that when you told me some time ago that the agency refused to accept your payment arrangements for a long period of time. Because you did not know any different, the agency used this inactivity period as an avenue to get rid of the file by sending it for the justice referral. So, you were treated VERY improperly. If the HRDC had some sort of proof that this transpired, it would mean BIG trouble for the 3rd party PCA.

 Johnny

Whether you can prove it or not, you should report it and ask for a reply.

Put them in a position where they have to tell you that they think you're a liar if they won't investigate it.

One more piece of fuel to the fire...

The reasons given for the settlement between the HRDC's lawyer and my paralegal were:

1)They only had 3 days left to file their response to my claim, 2) They still wanted to proceed with a judgement--My paralegal responded by saying that he would use the hardship act of 1920 to show that we were living in hardship, 3)Their response was that they did not want to proceed because they did not want a precedent to be set for other similar cases in the future.

As hubby says: Would they rather gamble on loosing millions of dollars in future cases or settle and have some form of return???  (They knew we would kick A** in court!!!

 ..which is the HRDC's way of saying, "now that we have your undivided attention, we would like you to start paying us."

 The lawfirm representing HRDC has instructions to present repayment offerings as an alternative to litigation - and avoid unnecessary action - UNLESS it is involving a limitation issue.. then the tides of time change for the worst. Hardship or no hardship. Bottom line ... the government can place a judgment against any debtor they choose providing there is a consistent pattern of non-compliance. Motioning a defense based on 1920 would simply tie up the case as a defense. At the end of the day, unless you could prove that you do not owe the money, it would have been judgment time.

 You were not reaching a limitation issue. Youw ere simply referred for justice y the last collectiona gency handling your loan due to whichever reason. Still, you were mistreated as I had stated - from what you had described.

 The good news is that your payment arrangements are in order ... which is exactly what the letter you had recieved was required to stay such proceedings in the first place. All youhad to do was submit a series of post-dated cheques to the law firm along with a financial statement in the event you are paying less than 3% of the principle.

 I know this system very well. I worked in it for 10 years.

Johnny,

Is that 3% of the principal annualy or 3% of the principle monthly?

Thx,

P

 It is 3% of the principle loan on a monthly basis.

Example: 

 If you loan is, let's say, $19,453.96 ...and the principle amount borrowed is only 11,673.42 ...then you required monthly payment is going to be $350.20.

 The back interest is $7780.54. All payments made are applied to interest in arrears first - until interest is paid.

Johnny,

I would have simply sent the monthly payments before (as all I had to do) if I was capable to do this back then.  I was not in a position to do that then...I am now like I've referred to in other posts....since hubby got a job we are now able to start paying something.