NOTE: This is one of the longest pieces I have ever written. Feel free to skip to the TL:DR at the very end.
This is a story that starts in late 2018. I came into that in somewhat late in 2020, and not on this site. But in order to explain the charges being dropped and the significance of this we’re going to need to go back in time. Trust me, this is a story that’s worth the wait.
VANCOUVER — On the morning of Dec. 1, 2018, Meng Wanzhou, the Chief Financial Officer of Chinese telecom giant Huawei and the daughter of its founder, touched down in Vancouver.
Meng planned to visit one of her two Vancouver homes to drop off some boxes, then catch an evening flight to Mexico City.
Eventually, she planned to continue on a trip that would take her to Costa Rica and the G20 in Argentina, with a stop in Paris on the way home.
Instead, as she stood up from her business class seat onboard the Cathay Pacific 777, and stepped into the glass jetway, she was approached by two Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers.
Meng Wanzhou was arrested at Vancouver International Airport on December 1st, 2018 by the RCMP. The charges laid on her were “Fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud in order to circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran.”
Of course, US sanctions against Iran are complete and utter Zionist garbage anyway. Iran stands in the way of the of Greater Israel. And of course US Politicians, as well as ours, are for sale to the highest bidder, Zionists such as Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, and many others, purchase them for these purposes.
I wrote at the time “her charges are transparent bullshit, and obvious thuggery, as the recent updates have made even clearer.” Considering that they were all dropped just a week ago, that analysis has aged like fine wine. Meng Wanzhou was clearly and obviously arrested for political reasons in order to send a message to China, and any serious politician would immediately have her released. This was a clear and obvious pre-meditated power move.
It’s similar to the Britney Griner situation with Russia, except Griner actually did break the law. And this is only reinforced by the half comical and half enraging arrest of her by the RCMP.
VANCOUVER — An RCMP officer who oversaw a small team based at Vancouver’s airport says he dismissed a suggestion the night before Meng Wanzhou’s flight landed to arrest the Huawei executive by boarding her plane.
Sgt. Ross Lundie says he had concerns about the suggestion “right off the bat” when the officers tasked with executing the arrest raised it on Nov. 30, 2018.
Lundie testified in B.C. Supreme Court that he told the Mounties boarding a plane for an arrest was “not something we do” unless there is an immediate public safety concern, and that the Canada Border Services Agency needed to be included in the discussion.
This story from the Canadian Press is from late 2020, when this stuff came out at Meng’s trial. Or rather her “evidentiary hearing,” which predates a trial. I included this segment of the article to show the casually stated utter absurdity of them needing to border the plane in order to arrest this middle aged Asian lady. Ultimately, they decided against this gaudy show of force, but that it was even considered, let alone recommended by some, should set the tone for the rest of this extremely long article.
Instead, as she stood up from her business class seat onboard the Cathay Pacific 777, and stepped into the glass jetway, she was approached by two Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers. One of them checked her Hong Kong passport to confirm her identity, then asked for her phones: one white iPhone 7 Plus, and one red Huawei 20 RS Porsche Design, which Meng handed over to him. The other officer placed the phones in mylar bags provided by the RCMP, who had made the request to the CBSA on behalf of the FBI, then put them in his cargo pants pocket. Three RCMP officers stood watching out of view nearby.
Border officers examine Meng for nearly three hours. The CBSA officers escorted Meng to the main international arrivals hall, where a kiosk spit out a receipt directing the executive to what’s known as “secondary inspection.” The officers, along with a supervisor, searched Meng’s luggage, and questioned her on-and-off for two hours and 36 minutes, as part of what they called a routine admissibility exam.
Those officers have since testified they had concerns related to national security and serious criminality.
Don’t you see you stupid goy? The officers simultaneously had serious national security concerns, but also just wanted to bring her in for a routine admissibility check, but also already had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. Remember, they were considering going on the plane and arresting her after she landed, but also this was just a routine checkup.
Meng’s lawyers allege that the RCMP and CBSA co-ordinated and conspired with U.S. authorities to delay her arrest in order to extract evidence that could help the U.S. prove its case.
Her defence team alleges the actions taken by the RCMP and CBSA, both of whom Meng is also suing, violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They argue that the violations amount to an “abuse of process” of Canadian justice so grave, that the extradition case against her, currently being heard in B.C. Supreme Court, should be halted.
For the very first time, the RCMP and CBSA officers who came into contact with Meng Wanzhou that day, along with their supervisors, have told their version of how the encounter unfolded.
Meng’s defence team plans to use any gaps, doubts, and discrepancies from the witness testimony as they make their abuse of process arguments before Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes in early 2021. They also plan to make arguments that Meng is a political pawn in a trade war between Beijing and Washington, and that the U.S. cherry-picked evidence, while excluding potentially exculpatory facts, in order to mislead Canadian courts.
This is undoubtedly true. The RCMP and CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency) wanted Meng as a political pawn. This has been proven by her having all the charges against her dropped, although this piece is from almost two years ago.
Const. Yep, who worked for an RCMP unit at B.C. headquarters that handles requests from outside jurisdictions, testified he first learned about the U.S. extradition request the afternoon before Meng arrived. He swore an affidavit in order to obtain a Provisional Arrest Warrant, which said Meng appeared to have no ties to Canada. Yep later learned Meng had two homes in Vancouver, but admitted in his testimony he never made any effort to correct the affidavit.
The RCMP pretended that Meng Wanzhou had absolutely no reason to be in Canada, despite her owning two houses in the very same city that she flew to. They later realized they were lying and just said “fuck it, whatever.” In the same way that Saddam Hussein not having WMD’s did not immediately remove US troops from the Middle East.
The evening of Nov. 30, Yep testified, he and a colleague, Const. Gurvinder Dhaliwal met with CBSA personnel at YVR. Yep testified that the purpose of the meeting was to confirm if Meng was on the flight from Hong Kong, not to discuss the plan for the arrest. That evening, he testified, he became aware an RCMP higher-up had suggested Yep arrest Meng onboard the plane. “It was just a suggestion,” Yep testified.
Again, this was utterly thuggish behaviour. Meng Wanzhou is a middle aged Chinese woman who came to Canada to do some local shopping. There was zero practical reason to board the plane, other than to be thuggish and send a message to the Chinese Government. She was not going to Houdini her way off the plane like the Asian James Bond. She was not secretly a member of Seal Team Six.
On the morning of Dec. 1, Yep, Dhaliwal and other Mounties joined members of the CBSA at YVR in a meeting in a supervisors’ office. Yep testified he had “safety concerns” about arresting Meng on the plane. Defence lawyer Richard Peck pushed back and suggested Yep was lying: “My view is that is not an honest answer. Safety was never an issue,” Peck alleged. Yep disputed Peck’s allegation, in part, by responding that safety, when it comes to arrests, is always an issue.
During the morning meeting, Yep testified, it was decided CBSA would meet Meng at the plane. Two CBSA officers would conduct an admissibility exam for immigration and customs purposes in the secondary inspection area, before handing Meng over to the RCMP who would arrest her. Yep testified that Mounties asked CBSA officers to take Meng’s phones and place them in mylar bags so they couldn’t be remotely wiped, at the request of the FBI.
This makes no sense at all, and is obvious bullshit. There is no reason to conduct an “admissibility check,” if you already know you are going to be arresting someone and putting them in jail. In reality, as is obvious to everyone, this was just an attempt to extract more information from Wanzhou without a lawyer present, hoping she would make some mistake. *
And as for “safety is always a concern with arrests,” that’s so stupid as to be baffling. Again, Wanzhou is not an entire gang of criminals, she’s an unarmed middle aged Asian Woman.
NOTE: The original piece didn’t make this clear soon enough. Border agencies have an enormous amount more legal power to do things like indefinitely detain someone or look at their electronic devices without them being allowed to refuse. That’s why there’s this legal bullshit about Wanzhou not being admittable into the country despite having permanent residence status. They needed to find a way to let the CBSA get their hands on her.
Yep also said he never asked CBSA officers, nor could he recall any fellow RCMP member asking the CBSA, to obtain any information from Meng during their exam.
During the CBSA exam, Dhaliwal testified he was charged with making regular updates to his unit as well as to a Canada Department of Justice lawyer.
Dhaliwal testified that he did not direct the CBSA in its exam or pose any suggestions about what questions its officers should ask.
Even if true this would be irrelevant, since we will find out later that the CBSA made a “whoopsie,” and illegally gave the RCMP Wanzhou’s phone and phone passcode. There was obvious collusion, but if you’re wondering why they’re going to all these lengths to deny this it’s because Wanzhou’s defense is trying to prove a conspiracy between the CBSA and the RCMP. If such a conspiracy could be proven, especially if information was shared, that would be a violation of Wanzhou’s rights. And again, this happened, and they needed it to happen so they could abuse the CBSA’s greater legal ability to do things to people.
After Yep arrested Meng, Dhaliwal took custody of Meng’s two phones, laptop, tablet, and a USB flash drive. He testified that CBSA Officer Scott Kirkland also handed him a loose sheet of paper with the passcodes for Meng’s phones. Dhaliwal testified he “didn’t even think about it” and just put the paper with the phones. He said at no point did he or any RCMP member ask CBSA to obtain Meng’s passcodes.
Wow, looks like there wasn’t any collusion between the RCMP and the CBSA. What a crazy conspiracy theorist you would need to be to even suggest such a ridiculous thing! Instead, they just give each other confiscated property and phone passcodes for no reason, without thinking. After receiving these inappropriate items, they thought nothing of it. This is a bit like saying “someone shoved a gun into my hand. I just went about my day with it there, thinking nothing of it.”
It’s a miracle that these silly-billies manage to get anything done! I mean, as long as they didn’t ASK the CBSA for the phone passcodes it’s totally okay if the CBSA agent gives them to them.
RCMP Constable Janice Vander Graaf’s notes show she arrived late to the meeting with CBSA. By the time she joined, she testified, the decision for CBSA to conduct its admissibility exam first, had already been made. Defence lawyer Scott Fenton asked if she expressed concerns, or called her boss to make him aware of the change in plan. Vander Graaf testified she did not object and did not think she called her supervisor. She also told Fenton that she had safety concerns about arresting Meng on the plane. When Fenton accused her of “making this up into a much bigger thing (than it was),” Vander Graaf denied the accusation, and testified her concerns surrounding safety were genuine.
Holy shit guys, a single 50 year old Asian Lady is on a plane. This requires a high tech, heavily armed team of police officers. If we don’t have at least 20 guys with pistols and AR-15’s this girl could just go absolutely crazy and dig her nails into me or something. It would be awful.
In revealing testimony that verged on combative, Vander Graaf also admitted she didn’t read the arrest warrant, which called for Meng’s “immediate arrest,” until 15 or 20 minutes before the flight landed from Hong Kong. Fenton pointedly suggested that because she hadn’t read the warrant, Vander Graaf never took what he called a “commandment for immediate arrest” into consideration.
Vander Graaf also testified she did not know how long CBSA’s exam of Meng would take because it was “their process.” When Fenton asked her if, hypothetically, the CBSA exam had taken two days, if the RCMP arrest would still be considered “immediate,” she replied: “That could be, yes.”
Defence also established that there had been some sort of “chit-chat” between CBSA and RCMP during the exam because Vander Graaf had written in her notes at the time Meng was carrying household goods, and the only place that detail could have come from, defence pointed out, was the CBSA.
It’s like this thing is bad from so many different angles that they try to overwhelm the filthy peasants trying to logically make sense of all this. Yes, there was obvious collusion between the RCMP and the CBSA, that they are now laughably trying to deny, and they have the smoking gun. However, the fact that the RCMP officers didn’t even read the arrest warrant until AFTER expressing serious security concerns shows that this was a political arrest.
Again, if you’re not following, the RCMP should have immediately arrested Meng Wanzhou. Then she could not have been in CBSA custody, where they get to do things like look at all your electronic devices against your will. But the RCMP needed her to find her way into CBSA custody, so they all pretend that there was this routine checkup that flagged Meng Wanzhou and was more important than the immediate arrest warrant. No, you’re not going crazy, it is insane that they expect anyone to believe this.
When it came to Meng’s phones and the paper with her passcodes, Vander Graaf testified she told Dhaliwal to log them, because “he couldn’t unseize something that he’d already seized,” and that giving them back to Meng would be “less transparent.”
I often have an experience when writing about ClownWorld where I’m so baffled that it takes me a minute to recollect myself. This is the first time it’s happened with police work, which is usually bad, but not this stupid and bizarre.
What Seargeant Vander Graaf said makes absolutely no sense at all. Don’t even try to understand how giving someone back illegally siezed equipment would be “less transparent,” than keeping it. Don’t try, it’s a complete and utter non-sequitur, designed only to confuse you.
Sgt. Ross Lundie appears to have been one of the first Mounties aware that something unusual was about to transpire. As a supervisor for YVR office of the Richmond RCMP detachment, he testified he got a call from a colleague in Ottawa a week before Meng’s arrival. Lundie said the colleague asked questions about the “flow” of arriving international travelers at YVR, and whether a traveller could exit the airport without encountering a CBSA officer.
Again, they needed her to get snared by the CBSA.
That evening, Lundie testified, he exchanged emails with higher-ups about Meng, telling some of them to “Google the name,” realizing she was “extremely high profile.”
On Dec. 1, Lundie woke up to emails from FBI legal attaché Sherri Onks, who he had previously met, and who asked him to keep her posted on Meng’s arrest. Lundie testified the request seemed “reasonable” but also that he was not the lead on the case, instead indicating the RCMP’s Foreign Domestic Liaison Unit under Sgt. Janice Vander Graaf.
Sgt. Ross Lundie’s testimony shows what everybody already knew, that Meng Wanzhou is a political prisoner, and that she was ambushed by the RCMP purely for political reasons. And international reasons at that, with the involvement of the FBI. He never outright says this, but only an idiot wouldn’t believe that.
Retired Staff Sgt. Ben Chang is the only witness in the Meng case to date who has declined to testify. Defence accuses Chang of illegally providing identifying information about Meng’s electronic devices to the FBI, details they allege may have allowed U.S. investigators to access Meng’s phone records and text messages.
In an affidavit, Chang writes he was never specifically asked for the unique identifying numbers to Meng’s devices from anyone at the FBI. Moreover, he writes, the information was never shared. His affidavit appears to be at least partially contradicted by an email from Chang to Dhaliwal that indicated the FBI legal attaché had requested “descriptions and lists of the devices” including the serial numbers.
Chang maintains in his affidavit that he asked Dhaliwal to gather only “basic information” about Meng’s devices, along with photos, because he believed U.S. authorities would need it to make a formal request for the devices through a process known as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).
Below is the email from Ben Chang to Gurvinder Dhaliwal.
It’s hilarious how full of shit these people are. Office Ben Chang claims that he never shared any information with the FBI. Instead, his argument is that he ordered other RCMP officers to gather information, which he was preparing to give to “U.S. Authorities.” So his defense is “I was planning on sharing this information illegally, but I hadn’t done it yet.”
CBSA Officer Katragadda was the least experienced member of the CBSA who dealt with Meng the day of her arrest, but also the officer who had the greatest amount of interaction with her.
He testified he did not think the RCMP plan to arrest Meng on the plan was “appropriate” because he did not believe Meng posed an “immediate risk.”
After less than an hour, Katragadda said, he had received enough information to adjourn the exam to a later date, and because he was mindful the RCMP were waiting to arrest Meng. But when he went to his supervisors’ office, where he said Mounties were waiting, one of the CBSA supervisors on duty told Katragadda to hold off until they heard back from the CBSA National Security Unit. Katragadda testified that decision was “not inappropriate” but “not what (he) had in mind.”
In the final minutes before RCMP arrested Meng, Katragadda testified that he radioed Kirkland from the CBSA supervisors’ office to ask Kirkland to obtain the passcodes to Meng’s two phones. Katragadda testified that while he was the one who made the request, which he called “reasonable,” he could not recall whose idea it was.
Less than 10 minutes later, notes and affidavits submitted by Katragadda and Kirkland show, RCMP arrested Meng. Katragadda testified he did not realize Meng’s passcodes had been given to Mounties in error until “days later” at a debrief with CBSA higher-ups.
Once again this clearly shows what happened here. The CBSA low level guys are done with their check on her. They don’t need to look at her electronic information, since she’s clearly here to do shopping in Vancouver. They’re also aware that the RCMP want to talk to her, so they don’t want to take too long.
Instead, they get a call from their higher ups telling them to keep talking to her, and in fact to get her phone and tablet passcodes. Ten minutes after they do this, she’s arrested by the RCMP, and the electronic devices mysteriously end up in RCMP possession, including passcodes.
CBSA Officer Scott Kirkland was the border services officer who assisted with Meng’s admissibility exam and obtained the passcodes to her phones. Officer Kirkland, who has been with the CBSA since 2008, testified that he had serious concerns in the Dec. 1 morning meeting with RCMP about possible Charter issues being raised if CBSA were to examine Meng first.
He also explained that, at a Port of Entry, there is a lower expectation of privacy which allows border officers to ask questions and conduct searches for immigration and customs purposes.
Again, I’m just hammering this point home. Border security agencies have a ton of power to search people, hold them for a long time, etcetera. This CBSA agent himself was cognizant of the serious implications of them questioning Wanzhou first, especially if their findings would just happen to work their way into RCMP pockets.
When it came to the passcodes to Meng’s phones, Kirkland testified that he typically wrote passenger passcodes down both in his notebook and a loose sheet of paper, which he said he eventually returns to the traveller. Kirkland’s testimony directly contradicted Const. Dhillon’s, who testified that Kirkland handed him the sheet with Meng’s passcodes. Instead, Kirkland testified he left the sheet with Meng’s belongings at the counter, and when he realized he had left it behind, he went back to look for it.
Kirkland testified that RCMP obtained Meng’s passcodes by mistake, and he never intended, nor was he directed by anyone to provide them to Mounties.
At this point it’s been confirmed that either CBSA Officer Scott Kirkland is lying, or CBSA Acting Superintendent Sanjit Dhillon is lying. My money’s on Dhillon with at least 5:1 odds, since he’s in a position of authority over Kirkland, who seemed to understand the potential illegality of this operation. However, they could both be lying. It’s hard to say.
CBSA Acting Supt. Sanjit Dhillon, one of two border services supervisors on duty in secondary inspection at YVR the day of Meng’s arrest. He questioned Meng about whether Huawei does business in Iran. Supt. Dhillon testified that he “suggested” to RCMP in the Dec. 1 morning meeting, along with CBSA Supt. Bryce McRae, that Mounties would not be able to intercept and arrest Meng at the gate.
He testified that CBSA conduct its admissibility exam first, though. Like his colleagues he did not recall who made the final decision, saying “that’s how (he’d) been trained to do it.”
I think we have our winner here. The other CBSA officers seemed, reading between the lines, kind of freaked out at how obviously slimy and dubious this OP was. It turns out Dhillon was the guy who, laughably, suggested that the RCMP would be unable to intercept and arrest Meng at the gate, thus necessitating them going onboard the plane. He also made the absurd decision to interview the woman first, delaying her arrest, but giving them the opportunity to seize her equipment, two phones, a laptop, a tablet, and getting her passcodes. Then they could accidentally-on-purpose give the RCMP the loot, knowing that the RCMP could not legally obtain those items.
Dhillon, who joined the agency in 2005, testified that he was the CBSA supervisor who relayed questions from the CBSA National Security Unit to one of the examining officers. Near the end of Meng’s exam, Dhillon said he left the supervisors’ office and approached the counter, where he began questioning Meng directly.
He rejected accusations he was trying to gather evidence for the FBI, and instead stated he had national security concerns. Based on his Wikipedia research, Dhillon testified, he asked Meng if her company “sold products in countries that they should not” and specifically if Huawei “sold products or did business in Iran.”
He testified that based on Meng’s “non-verbal behavior…there’s more to that story I was never able to explore.” Dhillon said he made no mention to Meng of the extradition warrant or U.S. fraud charges (which dealt with Huawei’s business in Iran) because, he testified, he “wanted (Meng) to speak to it.” He also admitted he did not tell Meng that RCMP were waiting to arrest her.
During her cross-examination, Duckett accused Dhillon of lying on the stand and making up his Wikipedia research as a cover story in order to ask Meng about Iran, instead alleging he was told about Iran by RCMP during the morning meeting. Duckett called the research a “creation after the fact” and asked why Dhillon had singled out Iran, but not other countries mentioned on the Wikipedia page including North Korea, Venezuela, and Syria.
Dhillon categorically rejected Duckett’s accusations. He also testified that the RCMP did not “instruct (him) to do anything that day.”
I’m not sure much needs to be said. CBSA Superintendent Sanjit Dhillon is clearly lying, and clearly was in on this OP. I would have thoroughly enjoyed being the lawyer who got to interrogate him, and not just because him doing a quickie Wikipedia check is either a funny truth or a humourous lie.
CBSA Supt. Bryce McRae testified he first became aware of the Meng case on Nov. 30, when the CBSA got a call, which emails filed in court show was from FBI legal attaché Sherri Onks.
There was no collusion with the FBI. That’s just a vicious neo-nazi conspiracy. Any and all emails with the FBI were purely for setting up golf times.
McRae also testified he did not discipline Officer Kirkland for his mistake in providing Meng’s passcodes to the RCMP.
But that seems like a really crazy breach in protocal that’s almost certainly illegal. I wonder why he wasn’t punished for this.
We’re barely halfway done with this piece. We’re now getting to her “unprecedented” extradition from 2021.
A lawyer for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou says the case before a British Columbia Supreme Court judge is “unprecedented” in that the extradition request from the United States violates international law. Gib van Ert told Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes on Tuesday that Canadian courts have stayed extradition proceedings because of international law breaches in the past, but in those cases the conduct around the request was unlawful.
The case against Meng is unique because the request itself is unlawful, as American authorities are seeking the Chinese national on fraud charges that have no connection to the United States, he said. “We cannot find any such case. We don’t believe that any requesting state has ever made such a request to this country,” van Ert told the judge. “You find yourself in an unusual and even unprecedented situation.”
This was a purely political kidnapping, and the lawyers for Meng Wanzhou were exasperated at how transparently illegal it was. The US has no actual legal basis through which to extradite Meng Wanzhou. You might think that they had, what with sanction violations, but she was never charged with that.
The best they could do was fraud charges. But these had no relationship to the United States. They wanted to extradite her but they didn’t have any charges for her anyway. Am I getting through to you how transparent a political kidnapping this was?
Her lawyer argued the allegations have nothing to do with the United States. Meng is a Chinese national, HSBC is an English-Chinese bank and the meeting between them happened in Hong Kong. Payments between the subsidiary and HSBC were made in American dollars and cleared through U.S. banks, but van Ert said this connection is “incidental” and not genuine or substantial.
Their argument for extradition is akin to the argument that all crimes that at some point involved US dollars are the jurisdiction of the US, so why stop here? Maybe if two crack dealers in Brazil kill each other over an american $20 bill, they should get extradited to the US using the same “logic”.
The case has severely strained Canada-China relations. Beijing detained two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, shortly after Meng’s arrest and their one-day trials were recently held behind closed doors, though no verdicts were released. Meng is on bail and living with her husband and children in one of her multimillion-dollar homes in Vancouver. The final phase of the B.C. Supreme Court process, an extradition hearing, is scheduled for May.
Straining Canada-China relations was precisely the point. Or rather, getting leverage on China because they’re being big meanies to Big Schlomo, by not letting Blackrock and Vanguard Capital into their country and censoring Harvey Weinstein’s Hollywood. And again, she just got cleared of all charges.
WASHINGTON — The United States closed the book Friday on the legal saga of Meng Wanzhou, the Chinese tech executive whose arrest in Canada in 2018 triggered a global standoff with foreign-policy implications that reverberate to this day. A federal judge in New York formally dismissed the last remaining indictment against Huawei’s chief financial officer after prosecutors agreed Meng had abided by the terms of her deferred prosecution agreement.
Cleared on all charges, although they forced her to never contradict the claim they made her sign that Skycom is “essentially” a wholly owned subsidiary of Huawei.
Meng, the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, pleaded not guilty to all charges as part of the agreement. In exchange, she agreed to a statement of facts acknowledging, among other things, that Skycom — which she had claimed was a partner with Huawei — was essentially a wholly owned subsidiary.
The agreement made it clear she would be in violation of the deal if she tried to contradict or deny the statement, which would then be admissible in any future court proceedings.
After three years of kidnapping, this is what they got.
I promised a TL:DR at the top of this piece, so here it is.
First, why is ZOG doing this?
- Zionist kikels hate Iran, and want it destroyed.
- China has deals with Iran, circumventing US sanctions.
- As an attempted power move, ZOG arrests Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, a company founded by her father Ren Zhengfei.
- They hold her prisoner, in the hopes of getting concessions. Maybe they can trade her for another mulatto lesbian Basketball-American.
- Also, extremely overpriced Globo Homo Schlomo tech conglomerates increasingly cannot compete with cheaply made Chinese Phones.
- Huawei won’t cooperate with our intelligence agencies to spy on us, so they need to be destroyed or agree to do that.
As for the details of this case.
- RCMP officers pretended Meng Wanzhou had zero ties in Canada, despite owning two homes, and having Permanent Residency Status.
- There was a pretense between the RCMP and CBSA that a 50 year old Asian lady, by herself, required a huge and highly armed security team to arrest. This was clearly done as a show to humiliate Meng Wanzhou for political reasons.
- There was no reason for the CBSA investigation to happen before the RCMP investigation. Or rather, no valid reason. Instead, this was done to fish out as much information as possible with Meng not having a lawyer, and exploit other privileges that the CBSA has over regular police.
- To be clear, the CBSA has the authority to, without a warrant, confiscate materials such as Meng’s laptop, phone, and phone passcodes. The RCMP does not legally have the authority to obtain those materials.
- The CBSA then pulled the world’s least believable “whoopsie,” and “accidentally,” gave information to the RCMP that they would not legally be able to obtain, such as phone passcodes as well as the two phones, the laptop, and the tablet.
- Nobody in the CBSA or RCMP were disciplined in any way for this.
- The RCMP “didn’t think anything of it,” when presented with materials, data and information that they would not be legally allowed to obtain.
- The RCMP then refused to give back any of Meng’s belongings, using the baffling excuse that doing so would provide a “lack of transparency,” despite objectively doing the opposite. They then logged her passcodes because “they had already been siezed,” despite this being illegal for the RCMP to obtain.
- Multiple RCMP officers and CBSA officers have strenuosly denied any contact with the FBI, but we have emails of them talking with FBI agents.
This was a clear example of a political kidnapping. Meng Wanzhou had Canadian permanent residence – although that’s a whole other issue – yet they threw her in prison for three years anyway. They illegally obtained information on her. They did all this in conjunction with the FBI. Then China goes and kidnaps two presumably homosexual diplomats and the case ends and Wanzhou gets to go home.
Our government is an unfunny joke. And I don’t ever want to hear cuckservative bullshit about Trudeau being a secret Communist Chinese sympathizer when he’s kidnapping them on behalf of his Washington/Tel Aviv masters.