This is a call to a lawyer in Canada, she’s part of the traffic bureaucracy. Her particular agency sends orders to the police to steal (impound in legalese) people’s cars and hold them for ransom (fee).
I’m helping a victim of these predators get his property back. We spoke with the police, they had no evidence and hung up on us. So we went to the agency the police claimed gave them the order to forcibly take the car. When I spoke with the lawyer’s associate earlier, I asked about evidence the constitution and laws applied just because someone was physically in Canada. She was unable to answer, stating she was not going to argue with me. I asked her why she thinks we’re arguing when all I did was ask a question. She backed off the arguing dodge and told me I’d have to speak to one of their lawyers.
I said but you’re the one insisting the laws apply and there is jurisdiction, if you have no evidence, give the man his property back. She refused to discuss it stating I had to speak to the lawyers. Yeah, just keep passing the buck.
This Call of Shame is the call I had with the lawyer. This is an example of the anti-social personality common to so many bureaucrats and politicians. It’s no problem she has no evidence, she will not stop the attack and she lies saying that despite having no evidence of jurisdiction she is acting in good faith. Well she was lying or she doesn’t understand what good faith means.
This lawyer states the evidence the laws apply is the cops took the man’s car. In Canada the laws don’t apply to you unless your car is stolen from you; I was not aware of that. Turns out Canadian law is different than American law in some ways.
When again asked what evidence the constitution and laws applied, she said they are proceeding “as if” they applied. I again directly ask if they have evidence the laws apply and the lawyer says: “Uh, nope, I don’t.” I tell her I’m writing it down and ask:
“So you don’t have any evidence of jurisdiction but you’re not going to give him his property back?”
“You believe you’re acting in good faith still?”
“So you have no evidence, you just said nope, I don’t, and you believe that acting without evidence of jurisdiction, you’re still acting in good faith?”
“Wow. Can I speak with your supervisor?”
I don’t call the men and women acting as governments gangs of killers, thieves and liars without a mountain of supporting, verifiable evidence. This call is only a small fraction of the evidence I’ve gathered and posted. They admittedly don’t have evidence the laws apply, the same laws being the only thing separating them from common criminals, yet they refuse to stop. They act “as if” they apply, it doesn’t bother them at all.
I could ask: What separates you from a car thief? We did it according to the law, that’s what. But you have no evidence the laws apply. It doesn’t matter, we are proceeding as if they do. But they don’t. That doesn’t matter. How are you different from a criminal?
The day is coming that we will no longer have to ask the age-old question: Why do so many people cooperate with these psychopaths? It’s inevitable; the evidence just keeps coming to light; more and more people will stop cooperating with political predators because they’ll know the laws are only excuses to kill us, there is no moral justification to cooperate.
But there is every moral justification to not cooperate.