so, i got my report - and it's bullshit, as expected.

i won't post this here, as i don't know the legality of doing so. but, i'll have the formal review ready by monday morning.

this is my short response.

------

this is exactly the waste of time from the windsor police department
that i expected it to be, and late at that.

to begin with, let us note the absurdity underlying the persistent
misgendering. i am making a complaint about transphobic bias in the
force, and in response the force appears to be purposefully
misgendering me as male throughout the report in an act of purposeful
disrespect. i have presented myself as female-identifying at every
opportunity. i can only hope that the judicial review takes note of
this, if the director does not. and, one will further note the
incompetence underlying this, as it provides me with a clear basis to
request a review - and was entirely unnecessary. the attempt to state
otherwise notwithstanding, this is simply disrespectful, and sets the
tone for the report.

further note that the officer freely admits all three claims of
misconduct in the text of the report, but then tries to make bullshit
excuses about it. while the windsor police department unsurprisingly
accepts his bullshit excuses, i adamantly and categorically do not.

i consequently reject that the investigation has found the allegations
unsubstantiated, and rather insist that the investigation has clearly
substantiated them, and insist that charges be laid against the
officer based on the strength of his own words.

further, a voicemail dated to sept 12th at 3:56 am was presented as
evidence. this is not heresay, but clear and direct evidence that
contradicts the officer's statement that the call was made at 6:08 pm
- that is, it is clear proof that the officer lied in his report.
despite this clear evidence of lying, the officer's statements are
taken at face value throughout the report, and the report itself
upholds the time of the call as 6:08 pm. this is strongly indicative
of a cover-up on behalf of the department, and an unwillingness to
actually look at the evidence.

there is no attempt to explore the fact that i had previous contacts
with this officer, or to take my allegations of intimidation and
harassment at all seriously. my complaints are neither upheld nor
dismissed but simply ignored.

while i agree that an officer is not and need not be legally trained,
that is in fact the crux of my complaint, in the broader context -
that before an arrest of this sort is to be made, an officer needs to
seek a warrant, which was not done. the officer's ignorance of the law
cannot be an excuse because the system has a process to correct for
it, which was not followed. nor is it appropriate for an investigative
officer to offer an opinion about the existence of reasonable cause,
as that is strictly a judicial role. i made this point repeatedly in
the documents that i filed. reasonable cause (whether it is even
present or not) is not the right concept to employ here, as the
officer was not witness to any sort of crime. this decision must be
made by a judge, not an officer; the substantive part of the complaint
here is in the officer's vigilantism, and no attempt was made to
censure or correct this, or even discuss it. in the end, the case was
dropped due to a poverty of evidence upholding the claim; this is why
officers are required to seek a warrant, to prevent arrests such as
this where no evidence of a crime actually exists, and to protect
innocent people from the consequences of unjustified arrest and
arbitrary detention. as such, i feel the report sidestepped the entire
issue at hand (the officer's refusal to get a warrant) in favour of an
irrelevant discussion about the investigator's irrelevant opinion
about the existence of reasonable cause.

a formal request for review - on the basis of correctness - will be
sent on or before monday morning.

j