Daniel Martinez9 said:According to CBS—not a chance. You’re the one who has to prove you actually paid them.
Business statements are treated as valid legal documents for enforcement, so you have to prove whatever they claim is wrong. That’s why some "idiots" like me keep every single paid receipt from the last ten years, even though the statute of limitations is only one year. You never know. I print out all my statements regularly because the bank only keeps them available in online banking for a year—after that, you have to pay just to see them.
And you think that’s how you actually get paid? YOU HAVE TO. Go ahead and trigger the garnishment using that document, unless you decide to settle with the debtor privately. You don't have to sue the employer anymore; a pay stub marked "unpaid" is enough now. The debtor will probably fight it, dragging things into municipal court to dispute the unpaid wages or challenge the validity of your claim. If the employer can't prove they actually paid you—kind of like what happened with CBS—then you'll see. I'll let you answer your own last comment on that one. 😉The judge rules in your favor, and only once that decision becomes final can they actually start enforcing the garnishment. Just watch out for the statute of limitations on wage claims.
And one last thing. The Federal Reserve isn't an investigator, a judge, or a jury. They're just the collector. Executing. Not even once she determines that a specific action has been taken. Done. The garnishment is being lifted. Pay the creditor directly. It doesn't notify. In that case, the creditor has to pull the garnishment from the Federal Reserve.
It’s pretty obvious that the Federal Reserve is just an executioner. They don't care about anything else; they just swing the axe whenever the law tells them to.
I have a similar legal instrument right now to collect from an employer (the employer issued a Statement at the request of the Department of Labor).
The Federal Reserve is refusing to execute the collection against the employer, mostly because they interpret the accounting regulation differently than the Department of Labor does. I'm still sitting here waiting for someone to tell me if the Statement needs to be printed on pink paper or blue paper.🙂
I have a mountain of emails (and direct phone calls at the director and chief levels) regarding forced collections involving the Department of Labor (who wrote the regulation), the Department of the Treasury (specifically the director overseeing the Federal Reserve), and the Department of Justice (where I'm seeking a formal interpretation). Every single one of them understands my point, but nobody offers a solution. When I ask them to just coordinate and fix the discrepancy between themselves, they dodge it by claiming it would be an illegal interference in another department's business???
The Department of Labor refuses to demand a new Statement from the employer because they claim the current "Statement is sufficient for collection." Do I even need to mention that the employer has connections to the highway department!!!
Yeah, several lawyers have reviewed everything and they say I'd win in court on the first try.
But I just don't get why I, despite having all the paperwork in order, can't collect from this employer through the Federal Reserve, yet anyone else—a worker, a retiree, or just some regular citizen—can get it done without this headache???