i know this is taking forever, and i hate it. but, i just haven't had time. i've been in a tenuous housing situation since march.

i have time, now.

i initially wanted to just sit down and get some work done for the next few days, but a closer look at the weather forecast suggests that i should do some running around tomorrow afternoon.

i pretty much have the new place set up. the walls have been scrubbed down as best i can, and the remnant odour is getting better daily. i don't know how long what is left will take to clear. keep in mind that my furniture is coming out of a bad situation, too. i washed almost everything; there's a few sweaters left to do. the bathroom & kitchen are both done; i had to pick up filing containers, racks, etc. i think the only serious thing left is shelving, although i likely still have some cleaning to do.

the windows seem to be a minor problem, but i think this place is stable, and i can plan to be here a while.

i really want to get through the last part of the rebuild, up to the connection point in 11/16. and, that could only take a few days, if i can dedicate the time to it.

i basically don't want to look at the court issue until i get a response on the request for further disclosure. so, i could potentially get a solid 10-15 days of work in, and that might be enough to get me completely caught up.

so, the justice i spoke with today insisted we come back in three weeks to give the crown time to come up with the list of stuff i gave them.

i'm expecting dropped charges before then. but, i'm baffled that we've gotten this far, already.

i'm going to need to wait to file a civil suit against the cops on s.9 grounds. & i'm going to hold off on the discrimination suit against the complainant, until i get an outcome. i have a year on both, i think. they will likely run concurrently.

i *did* get the notice of abandonment mailed to london, and expect that to be the last i hear of this.

i've stated this more than once: i'll gladly take the carbon rebates, and even support the plan as a redistribution scheme, but i'm skeptical about the actual efficacy of pigovian tax schemes and don't expect to be able to demonstrate much of any causal connection between the taxes and any coincidental reductions, if there even are any coincidental reductions; don't be surprised if emissions go up.

so, i'm going to support the scheme as a redistribution mechanism.

but, i still think we need more concrete actions on emissions reductions.

Request For Further Disclosure

Hello.

I am requesting further disclosure on the case of Regina v. Parent, J. Case ID: 79487.

This letter is being prepared for delivery to the Crown Attorney’s Office in Chatham, via the Windsor Office. It will also be presented to the Justice of the Peace and the Crown’s Representative in court room 6 on the morning of October 24th, with intent to schedule a follow-up court appearance on October 31st. I am willing to schedule a resolution meeting and subsequent pre-trial as soon as I am satisfied with the disclosure on the topic, but not before then, so long as the court allows for the reasonable delay.

With that said, I think that it is reasonable to review the situation, up to this point, to understand the nature of my requests for further disclosure. Something went very wrong here, and I want to get to the bottom of it.

I was arrested, without being shown a warrant, on the evening of September 24th (the details of which are best left for the trial process, but center around a “threat” i made to take the complainant, an upper class landowner, to the human rights commission for discrimination in housing, i think with cause - a threat the complainant decided was harassment) and held for approximately 20 hours before being released on a recognizance of $100 and an order not to communicate with the complainant, or be near any kind of weapons. I was fingerprinted. The crown initially had a lengthy list of demands on my release, included $4000 bail, but the justice rejected each of them as without evidentiary basis. An extremely oppressive impact statement - where I was accused of being “illegitimate” and “unwelcome here” - was bizarrely read into the record by the crown, ironic (and relevant) given the circumstances of being accused of harassment for “threatening” a discrimination suit. I was then formally charged with harassment and ordered to appear before the court in two weeks, under the assumption that the crown was moving forward by indictment, as I had been fingerprinted and arrested and held for nearly 24 hours.

I appeared before the court on October 10th and explained that I had not yet received disclosure, despite making a formal request on October 1st (and an informal request on Sept 27th). It was decided that we should give the crown another week for disclosure, and I should come back again for October 17th.

On October 11th, I was told that there was a conflict of interest on the case, and the file would be moved to the Chatham office. I was not given any information regarding the nature of this conflict of interest, and still do not know why the file was moved. I am requesting this information as a part of the full disclosure. At my last appearance on October 17th, it was decided that the crown should be given another week, due to the circumstances around the conflict of interest.

On October 22nd, I received this disclosure and learned the following things:

1) I was indeed arrested without a warrant, before I was fingerprinted and held for 20 hours.
2) The charge summary states that I was held for those 20 hours for SHOW CAUSE - that is, I was literally held without cause. I suppose that somebody decided they could figure that out later, and then never did.
3) The crown will be proceeding summarily, on a conditional discharge around the recognizance conditions. No jail time. No indictment.

So, I was arrested without a warrant for “threatening” to file a discrimination suit, fingerprinted and held without cause for 20 hours before the justice finally dismissed the crown’s position as having no evidentiary basis. Then, after the crown declared a conflict of interest on the file, and you will note that the complainant is a powerful and wealthy landowner, it eventually elected to proceed summarily - after it had already held me for 20 hours and fingerprinted me. It almost seems as though I was being sent a message not to file. So, who is being harassed here?

I will be following through with a charter challenge around s. 9, for arbitrary detention as a consequence of police harassment, to begin with, and am requesting detailed disclosure for that reason.

Please provide the following:

1) A detailed explanation of why the case was moved from the Windsor to Chatham offices, on a conflict of interest.
2) All audio/video and photographic material of the accused (myself) in custody, including the audio/video & transcript of the bail hearing. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
3) All fingerprint and mugshot reports, to prove they occurred, as they should not have occurred.
4) A detailed history of any previous complaints that Caroline Chevalier or Ryan Myon have filed with the Windsor Police. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
5)  Any reports surrounding the mental health of the complainant, as her statements suggest she may be suffering from a schizo-affective disorder and/or paranoid delusions. I will be requesting a full psychological evaluation of the complainant.
6) Transcripts and audio of any and all communication between the complainant and police from July 1st, 2018 to the present. There is an acknowledged conflict of interest on the file.
7) The original statement from the complainant that was read at the bail hearing. This appears to have been modified in the disclosure package. There is a conflict of interest on the file, and it is relevant to better understand the complainant’s true motives in filing charges.
8) The discipline record of the officers, particularly officer montino. There is a conflict of interest on the file.
9) Any record of charges filed against the complainant, including charges of filing false reports or charges of criminal harassment.
10) Transcripts, email records and audio of any and all communication between the original prosecutor and the officer, and between the original prosecutor and the complainant, and between the original prosecutor and administrative and management staff in the attorney general’s office, and any other known recorded communication with anybody that works at 200 Chatham Street East regarding this case, or regarding the complainant. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
11) A complete record of all “emails” in full, not snippets taken out of context or enumerations of how many “emails” were sent on a specific date. This is not just relevant, it is the central aspect of the case. How can we determine if there is an objective ground to deduce that the communication caused the individual to feel threatened if it is not available to be examined in full? You’ve given me a mustard sandwich. Please arrange the “emails” in  absolute chronological order, and number them for the purposes of further reference, as detailed reference to them will be made in the course of the trial. There is no reason not to disclose the “emails” in full, and if you will not or cannot do so then you should end this absurdity and drop the case. This is the most vital evidence that there is, here.

I am also requesting that you remove the redaction on the following components of the initial disclosure:

1)  the confidential witness list. i claim this is relevant for the charter challenge, as we have an admitted conflict of interest and a potential bias in the officer’s conduct. this “confidential witness” may be the cause of the conflict, in which case it would be necessary to uncover the witness to carry through with the charter challenge. so, please provide an argument otherwise, or disclose on request.
2)  the mcneil list. i filed an opird report against officer montino on sept 14th, so this is more than relevant but necessary for the charter challenge. i suspect that this was redacted to protect the officer from potential charges and is withholding vital evidence. please provide an argument otherwise, or disclose upon request.
3) the cpic query on my name. why was this redacted? this is my own record. it may be useful for the charter challenge. and, i would like to see it simply because it was redacted - and frankly think that’s a good enough reason, too. so, please provide a reason you’ve redacted, or disclose.

I also have important documents to disclose to the crown and we can talk about that at the resolution meeting.