removed believe what you will
not giving my real name because of the job, think about it ...
Don't have to think about it. Never expected it. That would be ludicrous. I suspect you are Nick Lisi or one of his gang.
You are correct about one thing. Scott was transferred to Millbrook, then, for a short time, to Penetanguishene - all under the same conviction.
So, a "jail guard" who says that Scott Loper was just another prisoner is somehow so interested in Scott that he follows his trail through the prison system. Sure, that makes sense.
is this a threat Buddy?
I have faith that justice will prevail. If you want to call that a threat, you are welcome to it!
You better start thinking about where you can hide!
An allegation was made that Scott Loper was a wife-beater, and this is the response?
Noise - Thank you for posing practical questions in a respectful manner. It is a difficult story to believe. It goes against common perceptions in many areas. As media scholar Marshall McLuhan wrote, "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." The "big" one, in this case, being a government that is disasterously afraid that their brightest national symbol next to the maple leaf is going to get tarnished. So afraid, that they are willing to go to great lengths to cover up criminal activity rather than uproot it.
I want to state, first of all, that I am not going to get into constant banter with naysayers who are only seeking battle for battle's sake. There are many such characters on the internet, hiding behind anonymous pseudo-names, spouting knowledge of things they know little about, and always looking for another point of argument, seemingly, simply for argument's sake. I don't have the time for that nonsense. To clarify, your questions and comments are NOT in that manner, and I am happy to respond even though, it is probably not what you are looking for.
Where is the transcript from his 72 hour mental health evaluation?
You say I have dodged this question. By saying it is irrelevant, I don't feel that I have dodged anything. Here is the point: First of all, Scott signed a privacy waiver so that an investigative reporter could obtain those records. To our knowledge, he did not recceive them, and we have not pursued the matter, as there have been more important matters to pursue and we expected the U.S. State Department to demand an investigation, which they have not done. At this point, while not letting up on the State Department, Scott is pursuing other avenues. Secondly, what point would it prove. It would prove that Scott Loper was admitted into the mental ward of Pickering hospital for a mandatory 72 evaluation because the arresting police said he was making up wild stories about the police, and that the doctors in that particular mental ward declared they could find nothing wrong with his mental capacities. It would not prove that Scott is not wacko or anything else. So, the naysayers come back with "well, that doesn't prove anything! The police don't just put people in mental wards without reason. They have to justify..." and on and on. Pointless as far as proving anything.
All you've got right now is a single doucment and a line about canadians investigating corrupt cops, nothing else.
We have, clearly, evidence of government lies. Does an agency, or an individual, lie when they are not quilty. No, they lie to cover up. Does an entity refuse to comply with requests for information because they have nothing to hide? The U.S. State Department has requested this information on charges, court proceedings, imprisonment, and the whereabouts of Scott's former wife and son from the Canadian government. The Canadian government has refused to provide it. And no, I do not have documentation to prove this. The information comes from a verbal conversation with a member of the State Depsrtment and vague references on the part of the State Department to U.S. Congressional representatives. What the correspondence does show is a clear indication that the Canadians are unwilling to provide any information in this case, first saying Scott was never in the country, then producing a phony document as a waiver of rights.
Do you even have a document showing that he was infact brought up on "Criminal Harrassment" charges?
No. He was arrested for "Breech of Court Order", for making a phone call after a restraining order had been issued. Somehow, these charges esculated to "Criminal Harrassment", then "Felony Criminal Harrassment", as was last stated by the Canadians, and referred to in a letter from State Department official Carolee Walker in a letter to Congressman Frank Wolf. (See "Documents" - ScottLoperStory.com)
If you have ever tried obtaining court records in Ontatio, then you know it is not a simple task. You need to know exact dates, where the trial took place, who presided, and in what particular courtroom. Armed with that information, you need to apply in person at the proper location where the trial took place. Even then, you may be denied. The Totonto Star tried to get these records and was refused. Officially, so far, these records have not been obtained. We have gone about other means of obtaining some important, verifyiable information and documents, which we are not putting on public display. I mentioned the reasons for this in a previous post. Everything I've stated in this paragraph is just more fodder for the naysayers.
So, facts are facts, and the facts are that the proof of most of these facts is being held tightly by the Canadian government. And the big question is Why?
Sineeed - Typical to my point. I am not threatenng anyone with anything other than legal justice. If you think that is a bad thing, I guess we know what side you are on. And, by the way, I DID respond to the ridiculous accusation made by your friend there.
I am a little confused. On this page of the website it states
Davison to Andrews June, 2005
Response to Congressman Robert E. Andrews' original contact with the Office of Overseas Citizens Services and Crisis Management. In response to inquiries following this letter, the Canadian government stated they had no record of Scott Loper having lived in Canada. Andrews pursued the matter, but came against a brick wall.
Yet in the letter it clearly states that they don't no record of the incident (that was mentioned in a letter sent by Mr Andrews on April 26 2006 that is not published on the website, a copy of this on the website would be helpful) not that they have no record of Scott Loper having lived in Canada. How does their saying they have no record of an incident mean they have no record of Scott Loper having lived in Canada? Is it just a typo?
Okay, this is just downright creepy now.
I'm closing this thread because it's gotten so ugly. I'm banning Buddy Logan for his harrassment of ginnie.
This thread ends now, and any new ones that get started will also be closed. Find some other site to peddle your story.