This Call-of-Shame takes us back to British Columbia, a city called Richmond. The agent, as you’ll hear, is very confident that if someone or their property is physically in Richmond, then the political laws of Richmond apply and he has jurisdiction over them. He has no evidence, but that doesn’t diminish his confidence at all.
He agrees that he operates under the argument that if one is physically in Richmond, then the laws apply. I have to ask him several times for any facts he has to support this argument before he gives me a halfway decent, though non-responsive answer. He claims the “community charter“is the evidence.
So I asked if there was evidence the “charter” applied and he attempts misdirection and claims I’m asking for legal question. He doesn’t have a problem giving legal conclusions, only supporting them. He raises a straw man claiming I’m challenging some “legality.” I’m not; I’m just asking for evidence to support his argument. He also stalls by questioning me on my motive. Anything to avoid the question.
When I first point out that he doesn’t have any proof the laws apply, he responds with a popular logical fallacy to try to prove me wrong:
I’ve prosecuted people who have property in Richmond in provincial court, so those cases wouldn’t have gone to trial if the laws didn’t apply.
That’s some serious ignorance of the political system there. I would not help almost laughing at him, and I pointed out it was just a logical fallacy (appeal to consequences) and not evidence. He initially disagrees. But, I did get him to admit he doesn’t have any facts to support his argument.
I did call the legal department and they told me the legal department cannot answer such a question, they could only answer questions from city employees. So I faxed the agent the question I needed him to ask the legal department. I’m not holding my breathe.
Last, think about the admission at the end that he has no facts to support his argument. He has prosecuted people in court and will continue to do so completely unaffected by his lack of evidence. That’s not only callous, it’s serial prosecutorial misconduct. And that is standard with “governments.”