Now lets review the number of evasive non-responses this senior Canadian attorney throws out there to avoid answering the question of what evidence she has to prove her assertions:
- The attorney conflates a question of evidence as a tax protester argument. A question is not an argument just because you don’t want to responsively answer it.
- Makes circular logic fallacies by saying the evidence the law applies is because the law says so.
- “As a lawyer” questions of evidence make “no sense” “legally.”
- She tries to back out of answering the question responsively by asking to “put the questions in writing” and then she’ll demonstrate what evidence she actually has to prove her case.
- She will not commit to providing a responsive answer to the written questions she’s promising to respond to, however it is ultimately up to her feelings of legitimacy whether she’ll actually answer the questions in good faith or not.
- She adversely reacts when asked the statist double-standard question and ends the call.
All-in-all, excellent demonstration of patience and control when getting repeatedly stonewalled by men and women who steal other people’s capital for a living.