Originally posted by M. Spector:
Your questions don't seem to relate to anything I have read on either the Scott Loper website or in the World Net Daily. I haven't seen where either he or the government is claiming that those records you speak of have disappeared or don't exist. I haven't seen where there is any indication that the RCMP would have been involved or would have any paperwork on this. I don't see where he claims his driver's licence was "erased".
How would his marriage records, tax records, employment records, etc. prove or disprove his central claim, which was that he discovered police corruption and was jailed and tortured as a result?
I guess I didn't read everything as closely as you, because I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time on it.
He does say that he won't name the Toronto Star reporter who was going to run the story [youtube video 2:30 apx] then, after saying that, calls the reporter "Rob'.
I find that bizarre because the Star has run dozens of articles on police corruption. Suddenly they're afraid, "I have a family"?
At 3:08 [youtube] he states that Canada says there was no record of him being there at all, "No driver's license, no credit cards and no record that I had ever lived there at all. Understandable if you are holding an American citizen you are going to delete him from government data bases."
My question is: If he was here for 11 years, why isn't he producing a single witness or shred of paper that proves his existence for those 11 years? The entire intertubes suddenly disappear or something? This is an ex cop, or so he claims.
All that's actually available is a Toronto Star mock-up [questionable], an indecipherable form ostensibly from Immigration, and a fuzzy picture of a child. A child, I might add, that he claims is missing although he didn't put the boy up on "Child Find" or other child find sites I looked for.
In my estimation, that's not proof.
Here's this huge controversy, yet in the past 4 years, not one major news outlet would touch it? This is an investigative reporter's wet dream--if there was proof.
5:23 [youtube] "I was taken to a mental facility for a three day evaluation...doctors found nothing wrong"
Which facility and who were the doctors? Nurses? Other patients? Records--which you can demand, quite easily BTW just by signing a release form. He later states "Doctors found nothing wrong, we have the medical proof of that."
Then why wouldn't he put *that* on his website as proof he was detained? The form would state that the police brought him in and the reason. Also, it would provide date and time and what the discharge plan [shelter and which one] was.
Why didn't they just send him back home to his wife after the assessment was done?
He states he went to a men's shelter. Which one? He says he called his wife from there to beg her to call the authorities, stick together and tell the truth. She said, "I can't" and then 4-5 Durham police cars showed up.
Now anyone who has ever worked at a shelter can tell you, it's just not that simple. Plus, when the police arrive there must be an incident report documented with badge numbers usually, as well as date and time. Those records are easily requested as well. Yet there's nothing on the website with that important piece of proof. Shelter workers also see a lot of police brutality victims so they tend to be cautious around protecting the residents' rights
4 or 5 police cars? [apx 8-10 cops] For one guy? For making a non-threatening phone call? Does that sound plausible to you? And how did the patrol cops get in on the scheme with the plain clothes drug detectives? Durham has 800 cops. What are the chances?
Then he claims cops threw him in the jail cell and tortured him. Then he goes onto a big Pro-American rant.
Nothing about being booked. Nothing about the court hearing or where it was held.
Right off his own website:
"He was released and served a restraining order at the same time. The restraining order was instigated by his wife, Carolyn. "
In order to get a restraining order--he has the right to dispute it in court. Nowhere does he say that he did. If he breaches it--he goes through court [even though once it's issued the police can hold him until the court hearing to determine dangerousness] He didn't say that, either.
From his own website:
"Loper was charged and convicted of violating that restraining order and sentenced to 2 years in prison. He was returned to Whitby to serve his sentence."
"While in the Whitby Jail, Loper tried to write a letter to a relative of his wife's hoping to work together to turn the situation around and bring these rogue cops to justice. That letter garnered a second two-year sentence."
Now, he's under an order not to make contact. He claims he was a cop. He can't claim he doesn't know what "no contact" means. He writes her family anyway? Right before he's going to be released?
Where is all the information from the second court case?
"Given the unknowns, the possibility must be assumed that Carolyn may be in hiding - and - due to the fact that a restraining order is still in effect, the possibility must also be assumed that this may be a decision of choice."
She would have to reapply for that order every 2 years and he would be notified. Yet, in the past four years he has not shown up for the court dates, or sent in any affidavits, etc. to prove he isn't dangerous?
While he has a story about eavesdropping illegally on drug dealing cops who dragged him off to torture him and a website you can donate for his 'defense fund'.
Was he in jail? Possibly. For catching the cops in drug deals? Unlikely.
Why drag his wife into it at all? If dirty cops wanted him, they could have just planted the dope, threw him in on a drug rap and been done with it. What court would believe he was innocent? That's been done before.
Why take him to a mental institution? Let the hospital send him to a shelter where he could freely walk right out the front door?
Then have his wife run in and out of court for restraining orders over the next 8 years?
None of it makes any sense.
That's why I'd like to see what Canuckistans that knew him, when/if he was here, have to say about it.