note, dated to sept 26, 2022.
i am taking posts down due to concerns about back-end editing by governments. one of the posts that made me aware of what was happening was edits to the vavilov sequence of posts from dec, 2019.
this was a real-time/contemporary analysis of a landmark ruling in canada, and that it might be edited to advance the interests of a sitting government is of extreme concern to freedom of thought in this country. this would be an extreme abuse of power, an extreme abuse of technology and severe infringement of several of my basic constitutional and even natural rights as a human being. i'm left with no paper trail, but suspect google could clarify the point on subpoena.
i want to collect the versions of the post i have here for insertion into three (i suppose four) separate archives. i do not want to write this now, as i'm typing into the backend and there's no point. i will need to wait until this is on a more stable system before i attempt to rewrite it again.
---
on aug 11, 2022 i posted the following:
(a) as recovered from email sent to my google account from the blogger ui on aug 11, and collected on sept 26:
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i'm explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
(b) as recovered from the blogger draft post on sept 26:
aug 11
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining it. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
aug 12, 2022
this is a rewritten vavilov write-up, dated to today.
am i playing tricks on myself? i have to acknowledge that i might be playing tricks on myself via rationalizing it, too.
========
(this was never posted but left as a draft until it was reposted in the august archive. this post has now been posted to the space this post is in, as a reminder to rewrite the initial post)
8:04
==============
the jan 15, 2022 posts, at 9:27, as i can recover them, are as follows:
(a) from blogger, as recovered on sept 26, 2022 and edited after aug 11, 2022:
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
(edit: this was removed on aug 11, 2022 and should be replaced with the updated version)
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
(b) from email, resent from the blogger ui on jan 17th at 1:42. the email was resent with spaces in the hyperlink, suggesting that i may have reposted it because the initial post wasn't sent due to the existence of the link.
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
we'll talk soon.
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
h t t p s :/ / sc c -c s c . l e x u m .c o m / sc c - c s c / s c c -c s c / e n / i t e m / 1 8 0 7 8 / i n d e x. d o
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong - you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
======
this is the version of this original post from my email, which was dated to dec 21 @ 4:22 but was actually sent on dec 22 at 10:02. i do not believe that i was having difficulty archiving posts at this time, so this is actually a little bit alarming. that post should have been sent from the google ui and dated correctly.
[dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja] 12/21/2019 4:22:00 PM
we'll talk soon,
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less
dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really
doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there
is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or
less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's
use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may
now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did
lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre,
in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a
rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible
for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't
lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right
answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that
means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong -
you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the
precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's
really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more
polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would
render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was
reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report,
but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the
outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my
argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look
at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z
and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is
just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's
really important is the application record, because that's where the
actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the
error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of
the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an
expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a
constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the
fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or
not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the
court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm
that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or
less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from
scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in
some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
===========
finally, this is the version was left stranded in aug, 2022:
====
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive analysis of the ruling would suggest that they're dismantling the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness reviews as reasonableness reviews. there is a slightly different procedural approach attached to this, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
in a correctness review, the reviewing judge is expected to determine whether the lower body of law (often a panel of non-judges) committed an error of law or not; the issue at law is whether or not the decision is correct. in a reasonableness review, the court can not ask what the correct answer is, it can only ask what a "range" of correct "outcomes" is, whatever that even means. the idea was supposed to be deference to an expert, but the concept has become corrupted via the application of irrational precedents, and has now lost any coherency in application. unfortunately, the legal system in canada has adopted the frightening and backwards idea that facts do not exist, so
so, in a reasonableness review, you can't tell the judge that the panel done fucked up and is fucking wrong like i want to - you can only argue that the outcome is not in an acceptable "range of possibilities". outcomes that are legally, factually or logically wrong may be upheld by the court if the court decides that being wrong is "reasonable". this essentially undoes any concept of law, and instead converts the court into an authoritarian body that is dictating random, arbitrary proclamations, which it gets to self-regulate as "reasonable" or not. it's a complete absence of law, elevated to judicial precedent.
what the new ruling really seems to be saying is that telling somebody they're wrong is impolite, so you have to suggest that they're merely being unreasonable, instead, even if what you're really saying is that they're wrong; being wrong is only meaningful if they're also being unreasonable, so the issue at law becomes whether they're reasonable or not rather than whether they're correct or not.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report was incorrect in it's application of r. v. storrey, i will now need to argue that incorrectly applying a precedent the way the report did led to an unreasonable outcome, instead. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense; the supreme court seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of political correctness in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to substantively different outcomes.
what the new precedent decides is that being incorrect might be unreasonable.
in my precise example, the new precedent would allow a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to potentially be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much