In my mysterious line of work for the company that shall remain nameless, I have had the wondiferous opportunity to interact with governmental employees. Federal ones. Bureaucracy is painful to imagine, but trying to interact with it at ground zero is worse than the torture of 1000 cuts. The particular agency I dealt with will remain as nameless as my employer, but I will leave clues. The F'n Dumb A$$ I dealt with was a true inspiration to proving that lack luster motivation and making zero waves will at least ensure a place to heat space daily. Our conversation proceeded like this.
I preface this conversation by stating that I had to call three people before I got this gym on the phone. I local agent, a regional agent and then the guy this person replaced. Awesome.
Me- "Yes, I am "such and such with such and such", and I am looking for information on a seizure of products notated as adulterated on your web page".
Dude- "Alright, what questions do you have?"
Me- "Well, we have some of those items in stock. The people you seized product from are people we bought product from. You seized their inventory, but they are telling me that the inventory I have is free and clear to sell. Can you give me some direction as to the nature of the seizure?"
Dude- "Well, all the information you will need is on the article. Let me pull it up and read it to you."
Me- "I don't need you to read it to me, I know the article. I am calling you asking you about additional information related to that article."
Dude- "Well, what is your question?"
Me- "Alright. Are the products illegal to sell?"
Dude- "One can certainly infer that from the article. If you read the part covering blah blah blah act, you can see that our reasons for implementing the seizure due to adulteration allow for us to exercise all legal recourse."
Me- "So, the products are illegal to sell."
Dude- "Sir, I did not say that. I cannot offer any legal advice. All I can say is that someone can infer the illegal nature of the product based on how the article is written."
Me- "Sooooo, you can't tell me the product is illegal, I am supposed to infer it based on an article that does not state the products are illegal to sell at all, has not banned the products, does not advise people to cease taking the products, and makes no indication as to why the products were seized? The people we bought product from say there is no issue and we can sell, and you refuse to say whether or not the items are indeed illegal. Do you see my dilemma?"
Dude- "Sir, if you read the article, you will see where it states why we seized the product. From that, anyone could infer..."
Me- "Seriously, I am needing more than your suggestion to infer information from an article that only states what your agency has done. Is the product illegal to sell, point blank?"
Dude- "I cannot give legal advice. But if you read our information on the blah blah blah act, you will see why we took the products. I hope this helps."
Me- "It really doesn't, but I understand the limitations you are working under. Can you tell me why the products were seized?"
Dude- "No sir, all I can say is that we took exception to what was in the product."
Me- "Is it that the product in the bottle wasn't on the label, or that the product on the label is in the bottle but is the main issue for your agency, or what?"
Dude- "No sir, that is proprietary information. All I can say is that the products were deemed in violation."
Me- "Was it the compounds inside, or was it adulteration of the compounds?"
Dude- "That is proprietary information as well."
Me- "So you can't tell me why the products were seized just in case someone else we do business with is using those compounds and we may need to stop selling those as well?"
Dude- "No sir, I cannot."
Me- "Okay, can you tell me if there are any other companies under investigation for adulterated products?"
Dude- "No sir, I cannot. I hope the information I have been able to provide has been helpful."
After some other round about questions to see if I could trick information out of this person, it comes to light that he has only been in the office for a week and has not had the chance to review the case. Meaning that the reason he wanted to read the article to me was because he needed to read it for the first time....
F'n Dumb A$$, I almost got a migraine talking to him for 15 minutes. 15 minutes on the job that I will get taxed on to ensure this moron has a job tomorrow to continue being unhelpful. Be sure to re-read that wiki article for the definition of 1000 cuts....
About Me
