HOAX or HORROR--You decide!

"I find the story completely discrediting. It makes no sense. In 11 years nobody saw him at the local Mac's milk? What was he, a hermit? You buy that?"

That's not even slightly hard to buy. There are people everywhere that nobody ever sees, locked away in small apartments, rarely going outside and speaking to no one. So unremarkable that they go totally unnoticed at their big-box grocery store. No family, no friends, no human contact. You would be surprised how many people live that way.

remind wrote:

Have not been following this at all,  but the witness protection is not rare here, nor are relocations to get women away from dangerous spouses, and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

 

 

ye witnesses will get moved to public housing in random places like London, Ontario it usually in the province unless it a federal case. Couple cities they use a lot are lil cities in the gta, halifax, and sometimes places in Alberta.

Then there's Ottawa, where the senate is used as part of the national "witless protection program."

Parkdale -

I am not writing this to clarify things to you, as clarity does not seem to be your interest. There are many arm-chair detectives on the internet who seem to derive some sort of self-importance by proclaiming to debunk everything in the world, and there are always those who thrive on negativity to cheer them on. As in your case, most of the time they have not read (or comprehended) the facts because they are too busy blustering. I have learned that defending against such individuals is a time-consuming and fruitless effort, as their only point is one of argument. So, when you refute their statements, they either keep repeating statements you have already refuted or accuse you of making other statements you have never made, both of which you have done, and it just continues on and on. I have better things to do with my time.

So, for those of you who may be sitting on the fence or confused by our friend here, it seems that I should reiterate what I thought I had previously stated. Please let me attempt to do a better job this time, without (for the sake of clarity) getting into too much detail about matters that are expressed quite in detail on the Web site, ScottLoperStory.com.

First of all, the word "hoax" has been used here. To that, I can only respond "to what end?"  There are usually one of two reasons for someone or some group to perpetrate a hoax. One is to play a joke, the other is to produce some sort of gain for the perpetrator. The actuality that one has not read all the facts, or has misconstrued or misunderstood those facts, does not provide him or her a legitimate reason to claim "hoax". Of course, that person has the right to say whatever they want, but just because someone has the right to say something does not provide the statement any validity. A good investigator deals with facts - not conjecture or wild speculation.  So, reader, please keep these two thoughts at hand; 1) FACTS are FACTS; 2) What would a person have to gain by involving U.S. Congressional representatives, a civil rights attorney, the U.S. State Department and the Canadian Government in such a hoax?

Before getting to the actual FACTS, please allow me to debunk the debunker by stating what we have NOT said and by re-answering (for the SECOND time) some of the questions posed by Parkdale:

No One to Verify Scott Loper Lived in Canada

{sigh} We never said there were no witnesses who would come forth to testify that Scott Loper lived in Canada. Frankly, the fact that Parkdale keeps harping on this point not only raises a question of his/her intelligence, but his/her ability to read comes into question as well. The issue here is well laid out on the Web site (at least, I believe I did a fair job of it) and was, most certainly addressed in my last post on this page.  The point was that the Canadians removed Scott Loper's identification from his personal belongings before releasing him and, at first, (until it was proven otherwise) tried to say he never lived in Canada. The point Parkdale is trying to make is irrelevent first of all because he/she does not have their facts straight and, more importantly, because the issue was resolved long ago. The point (once again) is in the initial denial by the Canadians.

"Massive Conspiracy" 

Obviously, Parkdale did not read my previous reply. It seems that at least one other person did not either, so, once again, I reiterate.  No "massive conspiracy" here. Just two factors; 1) A gang of well-organized crooked cops; 2) A government that has a known history of whitewashing police corruption for fear that the public will lose confidence in law enforcement. This was well brought out in a study by Crown prosecutors and other legal experts, in a report by this group that I cited in my previous response. It is the same reason that the government, be it local, provincial or otherwise, confiscates news media video property whenever the police are involved in a controversy. If you find this statement unbelieveable, do some research. Oh ... and ... read the report. it is on the Web site, ScottLoperStory.com. A downloadable PDF is available - Home page, left column, under the sub-title "A Policy of Concealment".

Medical Records Erased?

We never said ANYTHING about any medical records having been erased. Never even implied such. What would be the purpose in doing so? I don't get it. The point here was that it was a quick means for these crooked cops to get Scott out of the way for 72 hours so that they could ransack his home looking for evidence that could destroy their illegal operations. It is not an uncommon tactic among corrupt police in Canada.

"You keep claiming Loper never went to court" 

Never made any such statement whatsoever. It would probably be advisable, Parkdale, to understand a subject before commenting on it. At least, I find that to be a little more efficient than just rambling on making claims that have absolutely no basis in fact. It was, however, six months between the time of his arrest and his appearance in a court room.  All this is described in detail at ScottLoperStory.com.

Unsigned Document

Parkdale stated "An unsigned document 'waving Vienna rights' is not evidence of anything..."  Exactly our point. However, the Canadian Government is trying to say that it IS.

"... requesting money for his legal fund all over the place ..." 

What place? This is almost laughable. Although a couple of groups have taken up this cause in the past, we asked them to cease. We are not trying to raise money. We are trying to raise awareness. To do anything that would imply anything different would be counter-productive.  When people who were interested in the case discovered that civil rights attorney C. Scott Shields was volunteering his time to help Scott Loper achieve justice, it was suggested that we make a reference on the Web site if people care to donate to Scott's legal defense. There are no big requests for donations on the Web site, or anywhere else.  There is simply a menu selection that says "Legal Defense Fund".  Selecting that menu choice will provide a page with C. Scott Shields contact information, and a line that reads "You can help by sending a contribution of any size..." Mr. Shields may have netted enough from this fund to buy himself a good meal.  He has spent countless hours and personal funds on this case.

Now - to address a couple of other commentators:

Sineed  - Sineed says "I know a little something about Ontario Corrections, and this doesn't happen."  What is it you know, Sineed? "A little something" is not very descriptive. What can you tell me about the Whitby Jail. What can you tell me about the intererelation between the Durham Reginal Police and the jail guards at Whitby. You say this doesn't happen. On what do you base your opinions?  How does your "knowledge" relate to the situation at Whitby Jail?

Tommy Paine - Thanks for the chuckle!

---------------- T H E  F A C T S ----------------

The facts in the case, at this juncture, are fairly simple - mainly because the Canadian Government is hanging on to most of them and they are not letting go. There are many points, but I am talking here about VERIFYABLE FACTS, which are: 

1. Scott Loper was arrested for "Breech of Court Order". These charges somehow escalated to "Felony Criminal Harrassment".
2. Scott Loper's ex-wife and 11-year-old son are "missing".  The Canadian government knows where they are. They are not telling.
3. Four U.S. Congressional representatives have all tried to push the U.S. State Department to put pressure on the Canadians to do what is decent and right. The State Department has proven to have a stronger desire to please the Canadian government than one of its own citizens, forcing one Congressman (Frank Wolf) to make the comment that the State Department is not interested in defending the rights of ANY U.S. citizen who's Vienna Convention rights have been violated by a foreign country.
4. After first denying that Scott Loper ever even lived in Canada, that government, when proven wrong, then produced an unsigned document from an admisability hearing, dated three years after he was arrested, as a waiver of Scott's Vienna Convention rights.  This document has no meaning whatsoever on that factor and, indeed, simply proves, by their holding it up as evidence, that the Canadians have NO such waiver. Furthermore, if it were a valid document, it would only prove, beyond a doubt, that the Canadians violated Scott Loper's Vienna Convention rights to contact his consulate "without delay."

---------------- O U R  G O A L----------------

There is no justifyable reason for what happened to Scott Loper, and there is no reason he and his son should be deprived of a relationship with one another.  We are not on a crusade to change the Canadian system although, if we can contribute to that in some why by exposing this case, this can only be a positive side effect.

This is an issue on the U.S. side where the government refuses to protect its citizens. It is an issue on the Canadian side for a number of reasons - most importantly, where it regards police corruption and a policy of the government. from one level to another, of either sticking their heads in the sand or, when that doesn't work, working hard to whitewash crime and corruption.

It has become sadly apparent that the only way we are going to get to the facts of the Scott Loper Story is through public outcry. That is our purpose, and that is what we are trying to do.

------------- M E D I A   I N F O R M A T I O N --------------

There are other documents and information in this case that we can not, at this time, put on public display, due to the necessity of protecting the sources of this information.  However, if you are a VERIFYABLE member of the media, and wish to contact me concerning this information, please do not hesitate to do so. My contact information is available on the ScottLoperStory.com Web site, under "Media Contact"

If any one else has any questions or, more importantly, information they would like to address directly to me, please do so. 

Rexdale - Not sure exactly what the heck you said, but I think I got the gist. The answer is nothing makes us think the Canadian government would not try to cover up corruption on any level. They have proven they are more then willing to do so. As one Canadian official relayed to a member of the State Department. "Well, we can't have people losing faith in law enforcement."

I don't care whether you are talking about local or regional police or mounties. Here is the standard procedure (A simple study will prove this out):

1. Ignore the problem.
2. When Level 1 fails, due to information leakage to the public or a victim who's story has been told in the press, launch an "internal investigation". While you are doing this, check out the victim and see how credible they are and what you can do to deflate any credibility they might have, in case you have to go to level 4.
3. Conclude the investigation stating publicly that you have found no problems, that the police force is functioning as it should, and all is well. If you have any individuals on the force who may cause further problems because they are known or reckless, transfer them to another department or assist them with law enforcement employment elsewhere.  It is never advisable to dismiss anyone. This can cause hard feelings, and due to the type of individuals involved in these sort of crimes, could cause you a lot more headaches.
4. This step may be necessary if any witnesses have substantial credibility (as opposed to being a drug dealer, bar owner, etc.), or the media is doing extensive investigations and has evidence that local officials are lying or otherwise covering up. This step calls for lots of media publicity. You must appear open and extemely dedicated to getting at the core of the problem, "if there is one", all the while stating you believe there is no problem. You announce that you are calling in an "outside agency" to do another investigation.  This also assures that the people being investiogated are well aware of what is going on.  However, you need to be proactive in the media circus.
5. Announce the conclusion of the internal investigation from an outside agency, and let the public know that no legitimate evidence of police corruption was found. Statements from the "outside" agency will back you up on this.
6. Level 5 will only fail if there is a preponderance of evidence against particular individuals. This could happen if there are a large number of witnesses, or substantially certified witnesses, neither of which is usually the case, or, if there is evidence, such as video or audio that can place specific indivuals at the scene of a crime. Now, the situation is beginning to be a problem. You must look for a scapegoat. No matter how many individuals are involved, you need to find one person. By any means, avoid any implications that this may be any type of organized activity. Once again, bring in an "outside" agency.
7. Announce that you have done further investigations and have found suspicious activites on the part of one officer and that, even though you have not found the individual is actually guilty of any wrong-doing, you have asked for his/her resignation. If someone actually has something on this person that is hard to brush off, announce that you have solved the problem by dismissing them. In either case, assist the officer in finding law enforcement employment elsewhere.
8. Level 8 is a serious matter. This will occur if there is really serious evidence that cannot be easily dismissed. You are going to have to put someone on trial. This should be avoided at all costs, but, if it is inevitable, by now you should have transferred away some of your problem individuals and set up your scapegoat to take the blame. However, you still want to avoid prosecution without a public perception that you are trying to protect a bad guy. Do not cooperate with prosecutors. When information is requested by the court, delay. If the court is asking for records you are not required to keep, and you can easily do so, tell the court you do not have them. Keep in mind that court prosecutors may not be on your side and may not feel the same need to protect the public perception of law enforcement as a shining example of faith, trust and virtue.
9. If the trial turns out good, the officer will be exonerated or a mistrial will be declared. If it turns out badly, the officer will be convicted. Either way, you will be able to announce that the problem has been solved, and things are now back to "normal".

Canada is the only country in the world where you can sit down at a restaurant and see a welcoming Mountie smiling up at you from the placemat.

Well, exactly. It was a good PR job, and not without its merits. Idealistically, this is what we want - a police force we can look upon to be virtuistic defenders of the principles we believe in as a society.

The problem is, many Canadians and, most particularly, the government and, certainly, law enforcement, want to keep watching the cartoon while Sergeant Preston and Dudly Do-Right are wacking off Bullwinkle's legs behind the repeating background, and convincing their co-workers that they can get away with it because the government will just create another Bullwinkle and go on with the show.

So, Preston and Do-Right are getting quite a group together while officials just keep propping up the show for people's enjoyment.

My respect goes out to all the great people in law enforcement who have gone into that profession out of a strong social consciousness and a desire to be a positive force in society, and I am sorry you are being undermined by such ridiculous and ignorant policies that only continue to allow a bad desease to fester.

Does anyone have any information on this case that comes from a remotely reliable source?  You'll have to excuse me if I don't take WorldNet Daily as the most trustworthy place to find information.

TVParkdale wrote:

Frankly remind that's what I think about this case. I think she agreed to be moved as part of a domestic assault program. I don't think this is any "big conspiracy". I think it's blatently obvious what went on.

And anyone who knows that absolute incompetence of bureacracy here would know it doesn't take a big conspiracy to feck up paperwork here--one typo and 77 transfers later, it's a bollocks and takes 12 lawyers and 4 activists just to get your SIN number back.

 

Frankly this crap just takes away from the real problems people experience.

Hmm.....do you think this guy is actually trying to,  as the ultimate goal, find his wife? Or is he just on the sting?

Though the whole thing is a bit weird with the Can gov at first saying he was never in Canada. So it seems to me to be a bit more to all this than  a spousal relocation.

Ginnie - What's your REAL name - something tells me it would be "Nick".

I know Scott well. The LAST thing he is is a woman beater. Glad to know you are sweating enough to be scanning the Internet looking for stories. You can try to bafoon all you want. You better start thinking about where you can hide!

Scott was transfered to one other prison after Whitby and there was no failure to mention that.

Q: "dude where do you get your information?"  A: Provincial records.

Not out to bash Canada - just crooked jerks like you.  Most of my family are born and raised Canadians. As a matter of fact, most of them live in Ontario.

Noise - I apologize for not responding to your legitimate questions right away. Actually, I did, and, when I was almost ready to post, I tried to quote from your text, and lost the whole message. (don't ask :0) Have not had time to respond since, but I will. 

fucc the states shitstem cuz wtf is wrong with you holy shit I dont wanna get into this but dam nvm I was gonna say something about going into another view, growing up a dif way, but u know what fucc it... not gonna argue with a slave who loves it

dont reply to this gonna cause a thread drift ur misguided beliefs disgust me still str8 up cuz on this case tho the lacc of evidence or cover-up of it looks suspicious

removed, not arguing with those who refuse to believe

removed believe what you will

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

I am a little confused.  On this page of the website it states

Quote:

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?