This is a very short, though instructive, Call of Shame. The criminal in question works for the terrorist organization called the Minnesota Department of Revenue. I wrote she is a criminal because she and her associates force people to give them money. They are terrorists because they use threats of violence and violence to accomplish economic and political goals. (The woman on the phone is a low level agent, not the commissioner in the photo below.)
Some would criticize claiming this woman is no terrorist; yes, taxation is the forcibly taking of property under threat of jail, but what she is doing is “legal,” it is permitted by law, so the same rules that apply to me don’t apply to her. Even if we excuse this disgraceful double-standard, as you’ll hear in the call below, this criminal, like her associates, has no evidence proving her laws apply to her intended victim.
It’s not a matter of education either, because we’ve already seen where a Harvard law grad and chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court can’t prove their laws apply to us. Pay-or-get-shot, comply or die are the facts proving their laws don’t apply. Forcing people to pay you doesn’t make you a government, it makes you a criminal.
As with so many other criminals I’ve spoken to, this woman initially tries to deflect attention in a vain attempt to look like she’s acting in good faith. I ask a simple question about her supporting evidence and she snaps back,
“Minnesota statutes, laws do apply to him and I will not debate that fact with you.”
I point out that no one is debating, all I did was ask a question. Using “debate” or “argue” is a dodge used by these crooks to avoid the question. When you hear this, you know you have them against the ropes, keep hitting them by staying on point and asking for the evidence again. They are criminals, take no sacred cows and don’t feel sorry for them, you need to stick to the evidence to discredit them.
The crook doesn’t like being called out on her silly diversion tactic and drops any pretense of good faith saying she is not going to answer the question. Without a hint of shame she confirms she is refusing to disclose what facts her argument is based. Criminals, those who are dishonest and have something to hide, are those who make bold claims and refuse to disclose their evidence. They know they have none.
To further show she is being dishonest, not acting in good faith, I ask her if she has a good faith reason to refuse to disclose and she just restates her argument. She says her argument is not arbitrary, but when I ask her for the specific facts she relies on proving her laws apply to my client just because he is physically in Minnesota, she has a brief moment of honesty:
“Sir I don’t have an answer to that and I’m not going to continue this conversation.”
She again states she has no evidence and is going to hang up. She insists her argument is true, admits she cannot support her argument, then wants to hang up. I think those are sufficient facts proving she’s a criminal. There is no good faith as good faith, even due process, dictates that if your argument is not supported, then you back off.
This woman, like all bureaucrats and politicians, is a criminal. This woman is not the exception, they’re all criminals. The only reason most people don’t believe that yet is because they still maintain the double-standard or special pleading fallacy that basic principals of right and wrong don’t apply to those called government.
I have not had any contact with her boss, Cynthia Bauerly, in the picture, but I’m certain she’ll have as much evidence as her henchmen. I’ll report her answers here.