One more thing: Constable Smith provided me the case/report #. It's
2015-29196. As soon as I get a copy of the report I'll be sure to share
it on your web site.
As far as I know, case numbers are not assigned for "wellness checks".
But I guess we'll find out EXACTLY what you claimed when I receive the
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?