i am convinced of this truth and will need to react by finding ways to prove it.
however, i have learned over the last few years that i'm not going to convince a judge in ontario with a grade 9 science education about what's going on. the legal system uses an inferior and less rigorous basis of proof than scientists or mathematicians use. i find it frustrating that an argument that would be slam dunk in a science paper would not be taken seriously by a judge in this province, which would want a type of argument that wouldn't pass peer review in a scientific journal. they're incompatible bases of proof; contradictory epistemologies. it's not news to me. i knew this. i saw this when i was working on my law degree, but what i did at the time was write essays ripping the legal industry's basis of proof (which often looks to me like dark age reasoning because it's philosophical or ecclesiastical. it's based on aquinas. or aristotle.) apart and presenting superior types of argumentation rooted in logic and the scientific method, instead. my essays were all dismissive and critical and often threw out the judge's ruling in replace of my own, which was often quite different and frequently the opposite of what the precedent was. the fact that i got high grades doing this misled me into thinking i could walk into a court room and berate the judge for being illogical, unscientific and ignorant and that they'd be instantly enlightened by my superior intellect and quickly be able to see the way to a more scientifically based worldview. then, when i won a few cases, i decided it should be easy to get the judges to collectively pull their heads out of their asses. instead, and this was in hindsight predictable, the judges have reacted by aggressively upholding their own ignorance, and by rejecting things like implicit reasoning in favour of what are often easily dismantled logical fallacies that they legitimately aren't smart enough to be able to deconstruct. these people couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, but they make the laws in this society. it's a serious crisis of intellectual legitimacy. while i was forced to defend myself in a fight i didn't choose and would have preferred to not have, i also walked right into it.
i do remain confident that the supreme court will get this right in the end and am hoping to file in the spring. there's a long string of cases in canada where the supreme court overturns the lower courts on cases like this. it fits into a pattern. the supreme court will focus on getting the basic facts right and the rest of it should follow quickly from that point. currently, none of the lower courts consider fact checking to even be in their jurisdiction, which is outrageously absurd. you can't get the superior court to do any sort of fact checking and if they won't do fact checks they can't get to correct rulings, they just uphold the mistakes made by the politically appointed adjudicators (who require no serious credentials and are often not just blatantly incompetent but obviously stupid people) in the tribunal systems.
there's a monty python skit where the local religious scholar explains how you can tell if a woman is a witch or not. it's an extremely effective satire of the local judicial process in ontario.
that's what going to a court in this society is very often like. you need to work your way through that somehow if you want to win cases here. it's not worth it, which is why i didn't go to law school - i walked away, and focused on my art, instead. that's what i learned by going to school - the court system is a waste of time. it's almost always wrong. the outcomes are almost always wrong. the judges are almost always stupid or corrupt or both, it's not worth engaging in.
that said, i had no intention of ever being a lawyer. i finished the requirements for the law degree and moved to windsor without graduating because i had no interest in continuing, but that wasn't my intent, anyways. i did not go to law school and had no intention of ever writing a bar exam. i was never intending to represent clients in a court room. i was initially interested in using the legal system to enact social change via political processes (not via running for elected office) and gave up before starting when i realized that wasn't going to actually get me anywhere. i wanted to go after fossil fuel companies, advance indigenous rights, etc. then, after walking away disillusioned by what i learned from studying how it works, i got thrust into it after all via circumstances out of my control and what happened was what i expected to happen and why i disengaged - i showed up to court with great arguments that should have changed the law or adjusted precedent to better follow the existing law and got confronted by ignorance, laziness, arrogance, hierarchy, power, competition, conservative attitudes, capitalism, greed, class, incompetence, corruption and, at times, just blatant stupidity.
never think you can change society through the courts. it has been done, but it was lucky. it's the exception, not the rule. the courts exist to protect the wealthy and to uphold the status quo. the system is designed to prevent change.
if the stubborn weight was suggestive of food converting to muscle because i was drugged with steroids, the return to a more normal metabolism (for me.) and faster weight reduction after eating is suggestive that the steroids have been cleared because the steroid-induced muscle has now been pissed out, which is good. it's what i want.
and it's clear - it's what is true.
i need to secure the premises and i need to get cameras set up in here. you will get nowhere in a court in this country with reasoned debate, deductive reasoning, applied science or logical analysis. you need video. or it didn't happen.
i'm getting close to this point, and carefully learning where the cameras need to be to be effective.