You are correct: it should have been "too", not "to". Also, I should
have said "officer", not "office". Those were typos - not due to a lack
of knowledge or understanding of the English language. A dictionary
would not have helped. But thank you for the input.
Regarding reaching G***** by phone: you know I have a land line, which
you are able to call him on; you also know my mobile number; you also
have his email address. So your claim is frivolous.
Regarding the frivolous claim - you're incorrect. You've used police
resources to perform a completely unnecessary task, based on false
claims. They most certainly entered it as a frivolous report. The
police don't allocate resources to do "wellness checks".
I'd point out to you that the RCMP is the agency that administers PALs -
they know everything about me. They knew, before they came by, that
there are multiple handguns and rifles in the home because all firearms
have to be registered in Canada. There's nothing for them to "keep an
eye on" as you say.
On 06/30/2015 08:46 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
When you said, "Or would that have been to complicated for you to
I believe you meant to use the word, "too." You really should use a
dictionary. That sort of poor grammar common amongst the lowest
echelon of society makes it difficult to take you seriously. Not that
anyone does anyway.
As you well know, G*****'s phone does not receive calls while in
Canada. Again, nice try. I chose to only pursue a wellness check this
time, and as such no "frivolous claim" exists. To the contrary, I
actually had a very nice chat with the RCMP, and they indicated they
would be keeping an eye on you. I thanked them for checking in on
G***** for me.
Have a "nice" day.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
Like I said: the "authorities" ain't gonna do shit for ya! The
office called me after she spoke with G***** and she told me that
they were just responding to a call about potential child
endangerment, but after reviewing your claims, then stopping by
the apartment and speaking with G*****, they didn't consider it
credible. They've entered a record of you submitting a frivolous
claim - so the next time you call they'll see that and take you
with a grain of salt. Has anything EVER gone right for you?
Tell me, if you're so concerned about G*****'s safety and well
being then why haven't you just called him? Or would that have
been to complicated for you to think of?