i can hermit for a while, that's fine.

but, i'm going to make sure she pays for it, in the end.

and, no i don't want to hang out in the pot lounge. i went through that once before - the one time i went there, it was like going back to everything i tried to avoid in high school.

i don't want to play pool or watch movies or play video games, and i don't want to hang out with people that do.

the one and only reason i would want to leave the house is to go to a concert. and, if there are no concerts around, i won't leave the house.

that's fine; there's lots of books to read. and, i still have a lot of work to do, too.

well.

if i can prove she filed a false report, why wouldn't i?

and i think i can.

and, if i suffer consequences of that, why shouldn't she be liable for them?

listen: i intend to win every suit that i launch. i'm not wasting my time. it will be worthwhile.

it's just a question of being thorough, and ensuring that every transgression is properly met, and every consequence is properly restituted for.

but, that is the bottom line: without border access, i have nothing better to do than drag them through court looking for concessions anyways, so why not?

people need to learn to think twice before they misbehave.

i mean, if i have to spend the next two years in this boring shithole because of this, i'm going to make sure everybody has to suffer with me.

right now, i'm looking at two or three civil cases against the complainant, and a major civil suit against the cops.

there's just that one bar here, and they only get a show worth seeing every couple of months.

i don't want to just "hang out". i'd rather stay in and read.

...and, when it's done, this woman can expect a civil suit over damages related to the border denial.

i'm almost certain i can pull out some false statements in the report, with the intent to get her charged on it, which should be useful for the civil case.

the whole point of fighting it is to get the prints destroyed so i can renew the nexus card.

if i want immediate action on the prints, it looks like i'm going to have to file a s. 8 [search & seizure] on it, too. the ordering of what happened is important.

- i was arrested around 21:00
- i was fingerprinted around 9:00 the next morning
- i wasn't charged until 17:00 that night.
- i do not believe that the decision to proceed summarily occurred until the file was transferred to chatham.

that means that i was fingerprinted before i was charged - which i would assume must be a breach, if it can be shown that i was illegally arrested.

so, we're going with:

s. 2 - speech violation [annoying communication is not harassment]
s. 7  - illegally detained [as i was arrested without a warrant on a hybrid offence]
s. 8 - illegally fingerprinted  [because i was illegally detained]

if i cannot get the judge to order an immediate file destruction on a charter breach, i'm going to have to wait two years for the prints to be destroyed....which means i'm going to be sitting here in windsor very bored for a very long time.

that said, if i get a settlement, i won't be staying here - i'll probably buy property in waterloo.

i thought i was awake, but i'm not, so i'm going to try and sleep it off and get back to work in the morning.

is it possible that i'm the subject of some kind of nazi experiment or something?

well, it seems like incomprehensibly bad luck, doesn't it?

i need to say the same thing i've said repeatedly: i don't want to sit in my apartment by myself and do drugs. that's not going to make me "happier", and that's not going to increase my productivity. it's certainly not going to make me want to participate more in society. it's just going to force me to spend large amounts of time trying to sleep the drugs off before i can back to what i'm doing in a clearer state of mind.

i don't need drugs, i need a stable environment that will allow me to get back to my work in a sober and clear-headed state.

so, i had some kind of event down here this morning. i guess there's two possibilities and they reduce to the same thing: either i was affected by the bleach i used when i put the machine through a clean cycle (i'm done laundry. finally.) or this kind of dusty, chemically smell that gets worst in the early morning had some kind of effect on me.

i felt fucked up on something, and i really didn't enjoy it.

the consequence is that i had to sleep off what i wanted to be a productive day, and i was hoping that i was at the end of that.

i don't know what the smell is; i don't recognize it. i think it might be coming from inside the walls in the unit, but the fact that it comes up and down suggests it has a local source. if it was remnant smoke on my furniture it would be constant. and, if it was coming from next door, you'd think it would be worse during peak hours, rather than early in the morning. so, i'm left to conclude that the kid upstairs is smoking late at night. up until last night, it seemed like she was mostly smoking cigarettes, and maybe some pot, but last night was a rough experience.

generally, it gives me a sore throat and makes me cough. last night, i had a kind of racing high that i'd associate with a stimulant - and then i crashed very hard, which is what happens.

i moved here explicitly to get away from this.

again: i don't have much direct evidence, so i don't want to jump to conclusions. there could be some factors outside that make the pollution worse at a specific time of day, or it could be a consequence of a dirty heating system that switches on at the same time or something. i'm still in fact-finding mode. i'm still trying to figure it out.

but, i don't want what happened last night to ever happen again.

and, i'm dreading going through this again, after i tried so hard to make sure i wouldn't...

i'm going to have to do what i'm going to have to do, but let's hope i don't have to do it.

i think the dad should be home upstairs soon, and we'll see what he says when he comes in. i'm kind of hoping he comes down here and questions me, as that's probably the best way to approach it.

i'm still groggy, but hopefully it wears off soon.

i've pointed this out a few times, now.

it is true that if any specific country in the western alliance were to stop arms shipments to the saudis, then another would pick it up. but, that is what every country in the western alliance says.

we claim there's no point in pulling out, because the americans would get the contracts. and, the americans claim the germans would get the contract. and, the germans claim the french would get the contract. .... . & this is all true enough.

but, if we're all saying the same thing to each other, maybe there's actually enough of a confluence of opinion here that a boycott should be being discussed.

i think that the evidence is fairly clear: arming the saudis right now is something roughly equivalent to arming hitler in the 30s, which is something that the west did, too - at tremendous consequence to itself.

a total arms boycott on the saudis is something that nato should be seriously considering.

so, they'll buy from the russians, then?

well, let them make that choice, if they so choose - i might suggest it would not be in their interests.

yeah. i'm going to file a s. 2 as well.

this is kind of awkward, but i think it's necessary due to the initial definition of "harassment" that was provided to me by the cop. the truth is that, in canada, which has a single federal criminal code and no provincial codes, harassment has a stronger wording and burden than many jurisdictions in the united states - in canada you have to explicitly show a genuine basis of fear. it is not enough to simply be annoyed, or simply be offended, there is a burden on the crown to show the potential for concrete harm. and, it is for that reason that i've demonstrated such a high degree of confidence - i know that these charges are premised upon an error of law, and i'm consequently the one dealing with actual harassment, here.

however, in the united states, harassment laws that explicitly included the term "annoy" have been struck down as unconstitutional, under a 2011 ruling.

so, i'm in a weird situation where i'm fighting against an error in law that is rooted in an american understanding of "harassment" that has been ruled unconstitutional in america, and never existed in canada in the first place - but that one would expect would be struck down as unconstitutional here, too, if such a law did exist. so, if i was arrested for being annoying under what is an american statute that has already been struck down, i should be challenging the arrest on the basis it exists on - even if it is in truth extralegal, in addition to the arrest being extrajudicial.

what that means is that i'd be seeking a judicial ruling that explicitly states that behaviour that is annoying but not threatening is not covered under harassment laws, which is perhaps what the society needs in order to work through the colloquialism.

again: this is why the cops are supposed to ask a judge for a warrant.

so, that's s. 2 & s. 7. i'll have to think about anything else i'm going to bring up...

and, how will a carbon tax affect me directly?

the truth is that i'm very conscious of this, and have a very low footprint. i don't buy gas in any way. my one sin is that i buy a lot of imported fruit, but my argument is that it isn't really a choice i'm making, it's a choice made by distributors - largely driven by the price of labour. i live in one of the largest tomato-producing regions in the world, but the grocery store stocks tomatoes from mexico, because it saves money by doing it - and i need to go through the distributors, whether i like it or not.

if a carbon tax increases the price of mexican tomatoes, that may make canadian tomatoes more competitive, which is both good for the environment and the economy.

but, it exposes another problem: is a carbon tax legal under the new nafta? was it legal under the old one? in their backwards attempt to stop this, the conservatives are going to focus on constitutional arguments that are largely invalid. the more pressing challenge may come in the form of arguing that it's essentially a tariff on imported goods, and it's damage on foreign investors consequently rules it invalid under wto or other "free trade" rules.

we went through this about ten years ago, when the province tried to set up a rebate system for locally built sustainable energy projects like wind farms, and it got shut down by some japanese investors through a wto challenge. i wouldn't be surprised to see the mexicans sue us over this, if it hurts their manufacturing and agriculture sectors.

the other thing i need to buy is electronics, but i try to buy them a little older or second hand, so i'm getting surplus stock or pre-used goods. i do the same thing with clothes - with the exception of certain things like socks, i insist on buying all clothes second-hand, to avoid paying into the clothing economy, which is largely driven by slave labour. i can't imagine a new economy, but i can try to avoid supporting the existing one. as i focus on surplus supply, this isn't likely to affect my costs on electronics very much.

so, in terms of concrete changes in my life, this is likely to affect me only in the sense of it increasing the price of produce. but, if that leads to the distributors shifting to more locally grown items, it's a long overdue change that i'm strongly in favour of.

just in case you're curious, windsor would be the fourth largest metropolitan area in ontario, behind the gta (including kitchener & hamilton), ottawa and london. but, considering that windsor is really a part of the detroit metropolitan area, the region actually rivals toronto in size. i do think that the gta is a bit bigger than the greater detroit area, at this point, but that wasn't always true.

what's left of windsor seems to see itself as a small and somewhat isolated town, but this is a relic of industrial decay, and the apparent fact that this city is ignorant of it's own history and geography. the reality is that this is historically the southern part of what has been the largest and most important city in the great lakes region.

the geography makes it hard to imagine a different outcome, but had the initial french colonists of fort detroit expanded the city southwards into ontario rather than northwards into michigan then this may have become the biggest and most important city in canada.

somebody in the department decided they wanted to teach me a lesson by sending me to jail for the night.

but, that is not legal in a democratic country with a bill of rights - it is despotic thinking, and only possible in a country without laws.

it is the people responsible for this affront upon my liberty that need to be taught a lesson in civil rights.

to be clear: i am currently looking to take advantage of the situation by launching a civil suit against the police for arbitrary detention, under s. 7. i'm looking to file in the superior court for full restitution, and am toying with the number of $20 million as compensation for emotional harm. i expect to file this case concurrent to the criminal case, essentially as soon as i receive the relevant disclosure.

what is the price of freedom? i was illegally held for 20 hours. 20 million dollars strikes me as a low price to pay for such an affront upon my freedom.

if i file a s. 2 challenge, it will be more as a civil rights activist in order to create the relevant jurisprudence moving forward, to stop this kind of abuse of power from happening again.

i'm just wondering if i should be filing a challenge under free speech grounds, in addition to one under arbitrary arrest. that would be s. 2 in canada.

https://reason.com/blog/2014/05/14/new-yorks-highest-court-upholds-the-righ

& 07/2016 is now reconstructed, after a couple of days of work.

i need to fill in some gaps, still, but i should be on to august in a few hours.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trump-as-hyper-zionist.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-laughable-idea-that.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-public-policy-polling.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-rug-being-pulled-out-from.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-this-cycles-electoral-map.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-corrosive-effects-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-reality-that-canada-is.html

in case you're curious, i did not vote in the municipal elections. i moved into a new ward oct 2nd,  and i didn't have the time to do the research, this time.

i can state with some certainty that i would not have voted for either of the major mayoral candidates. for a city that is supposed to be union-focused, it is strange that there wasn't an "ndp" candidate running of any renown - the choices were between a moderate conservative and a business liberal, neither of which are what the city needs right now. it is true that the city needs investment for the purposes of long term job creation, but at the mayoral level what it needs is a left-populist to tax heavily and spend liberally on social services - most importantly low income housing.

and, that's not just something that helps poor people, like me. we're in the process of converting the library into a homeless shelter, under some kind of scorched earth policy that is essentially an abandonment of the library to the mob. but, will they leave the computers in the new shelter? will it have wifi for their out-of-service phones? because, if not, you can expect that the homeless people will hang out in the new library, too - unless security gets drastic, which would be regrettable, but is perhaps not so unlikely. the solution to the homeless problem is not a new library, it's more housing. but, this is the kind of disinterested policy that you get from a conservative-driven council, that doesn't want to solve the problem, so much as it wants to find ways to effectively ignore it.

that said, it seems like the balance on the council may have shifted a little left, and that might be a start. we'll see how the mayor reacts to the new balance of power.

i did not check to see which ward i was going to be in, but it seems like i'm in ward 2. this ward was represented by a councillor who got into some trouble for stating some chauvinistic comments into the record, and i am happy to see he was defeated - even if i didn't get the chance to vote against him. i don't know much about the new councillor but it seems like it is probably going to help balance the council more towards the left.

more pressing to me was actually the sex ed question. i would have liked to explicitly vote in favour of keeping the 2015 version, and would have focused research around this question if i had the time to do it. this would have been the thing that got me out to actually vote. it turns out that one of the sitting councillors appears to have the right take on this, at least.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-clinton-as-product-of-her.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-clintons-continued-neo.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-online-polling-second-time.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-predictive-election.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-extreme-social-coercion.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-clintons-reactionary.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-fat-shaming-as-anarchist.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-impossibility-of-feminine.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-predictability-of-hillary.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-surreal-truth-that-trump.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-online-polling.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-continuing-democratic-party.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-hillary-clintons-perception.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-absurd-naivete-on-left.html

i should have the location tab working, now. it didn't want to work on this blog...

i just want to make a basic request to everybody.

i've studied enough economics to understand that economic modelling is indiscernible from charlatanism. to begin with, the economy is too volatile to make any kind of prediction at all over any extended period of time. but, the forces that they use are broadly too poorly defined to really make any sense of, in a modelling context. supply and demand just simply doesn't work like gravitation, or magnetism. these forces are abstractions of thought, rather than physical constants - they don't actually exist in the real world.

so, you're going to see arguments about this carbon tax that are created by modelling, and essentially none of them are going to mean anything. the models that the government is going to present are essentially just going to be propaganda, and the models that the opposition uses to counter aren't going to be any better. but, up until recently, it was all we had - because a carbon tax was just an idea, and there wasn't any meaningful data to use.

at this point, we should no longer be talking about externalities and incentive systems, or sin taxes, as these broad abstractions. we now have some actual data to use. so, instead of citing some market-based theory about pigovian taxes reducing bad behaviour as this philosophical idea, we should be able to cite actual data about the ability of carbon taxation to reduce emissions. and, what does the data say?

well, this is one study, and it does appear to be a review, but maybe you have something else a bit newer. the point is that i want you to look at data. let's change our epistemology here - we don't have to look at this philosophically any more, we can be scientific about it.

these numbers aren't much outside of the margins, to be honest. it's hard to separate the numbers from the noise. and, i'm left remaining rather skeptical about the efficacy.

again: i'm not going to oppose this, as i stand to make some money from it, and i support the idea underlying it. but, if we're serious about this, i think we're going to need to step away from these market schemes and focus more on directly funding a transition. it doesn't have to be either/or. but, i think that even the most optimistic reading of the empirical data suggests that a carbon tax is not going to be enough to make a serious impact, and this can at best be viewed as "step one".

https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/9_49.pdf

look at syria, for example.

assad is a secular leftist and holds the broad support of the secular urban population.

western imperialist ambitions in the region are supporting radical islamic fundamentalists, that want to set up a brutal theocracy. and, why can't the superpower win in a little country like syria? because these groups have no popular support at all. yet, the relativists will stand up for these groups on the grounds of cultural relativism out of orientalist ignorance; what they're really doing is just pushing western propaganda, for the purposes of generating support to carry through with strategic american geopolitical objectives. they're useful idiots.

there's some problems with speech rights in the country, sure. but, if it's a binary choice, a leftist should side with assad on every level - as an anti-imperialist, as a secularist and as a supporter of democracy and self-representation.

the irony, of course, is that the british and americans have generally carried through their imperialist agenda in the middle east by installing brutal dictators, not by spreading western values systems. the counter-example is iran, but one wonders if that was actually a sign of respect for the deep legacy of iranian culture, almost an invitation for iran to enter into the european world. they never tried anything like that in any arab countries.

and, a lot of anti-imperialist writers will make the point explicitly. to an extent, this kind of moral relativism is actually a type of orientalism. while it is true that the koran forbids homosexuality, it is also true that the strict laws against homosexuality in the arab world are largely a consequence of imperialism, not just since world war one but back to napoleon's invasion of egypt, which did not seek to dismantle these islamic theocracies so much as it sought to use them to create stable puppet regimes. before it collapsed, the ottoman empire was rapidly secularizing; the introduction of british and french forces actually reversed that. what we call the islamic golden age was actually a period of iranian and babylonian renaissance that was ended by an enforcement of islamic theocracy that came in after the mongolian destruction event, and with that enforcement came a crack down on homosexuality, as a consequence of a need to reconstruct the population. historically, crackdowns on homosexuality are usually tied to a need for the elite to create more slaves, which is exactly what happened after the mongol invasion. rumi, for example, was openly bisexual. many anti-imperialist writers have argued that this culture of homophobia and toxic masculinity is not indigenous to the middle east, but actually comes from the militarism of the imperialist west.

it's just another example of how these people are ignorant of history, and just a reflection of the status quo, as enforced by mass media. this idea that the west wants to enforce it's value systems on the east is just a propaganda tool used by western militaries - this has never been true in any meaningful sense. imperialism rejects democracy using all of the same language that the islamic theocracies and military dictatorships will use, which is not a coincidence, as these regimes are the actual legacy of imperialism. and, likewise, it's not some coincidence that these so-called relativists are just out there performing argumentative lip service for the very militant groups that our own governments are supporting, in order to destabilize our geopolitical rivals in russia. they've got it completely backwards.

i have to support the rights of self-determination, not just ideologically but also pragmatically. you can't enforce a democracy on a people. but, i can choose which groups i want to stand in solidarity with, and they are the groups that stand up for enlightenment values in their aim to abolish the ancient orders - which are the groups often in most direct conflict with imperialist ambitions.

a culture that wants to continue to repress homosexuality because it says so in a "sacred book" is authoritarian and immoral and solidarity should be had with those that want to overturn the order and introduce a democratic regime. existing on the left means standing in solidarity with those that are being repressed by authoritarian systems, not shrugging off the existence of those systems as "relativism" or "diversity in thought".

see, here's the thing: the viewpoints held by the hosts here are not historically without precedent. but, this is not "moral relativism". this is simply conservatism. you'll notice that both of the questioners retreated to their bottles of water, producing these "i'm offended" types of body language. and, this is the point that bothers me: they think they're some kind of liberals, and that they've discarded the oppression of enlightenment thought, or something. but, in the process, they've merely retreated to basic conservative value systems.

and, i'm not willing to split hairs over this.

if you're going to stand up for the value systems in a country like iran, i'm going to call you a right-wing extremist and treat you like a mortal enemy - because that's what you are. i'm not going to pretend it doesn't matter, because that is normalizing the value systems that the left needs to overturn to enforce itself.

the reality is that "post-modernism" and "moral relativism" are just synonymous with neo-conservatism: they are a sneaky way to trick leftists into standing up for the status quo.

chomsky is correct, here. there are objective standards of progress, and cultures that reject those objective standards need to be destroyed, by force if necessary. that is a revolutionary, leftist perspective; to suggest otherwise is reactionary and conservative.

i have not been following the midterm elections, and will not be posting predictions or analysis here.

notwithstanding some major shift in public perceptions, any time the narrative of an election season shifts to "security" or "terrorism", the republicans will get a bump in the polls.

as it is with immigration and public debt, the facts of the matter aren't important: decades of media framing has ensured that the democrats are seen by most americans as weak on national security. obama deported record numbers of millions of people, but he couldn't overturn the framing; he didn't overturn the framing on the military, either.

if the democrats want to prevent this from harming them in the midterms, they need to find a way to change the topic, and avoid playing into the narrative by appearing obsequious to republican talking points.

personally? i think it could hurt the democrats rather drastically - or, perhaps it's merely an excuse. remember: the united states has very restricted levels of suffrage.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-expansion-of-broadband-as.html

so, it could be a very long time before i buy any legal pot.

i'm just not interested right now.

i know you're disappointed.

but, i've been clear about the point for a long time: with the exception of yearly "head clears" around christmas, and sometimes mid-year binges around canada day, i don't drink or smoke at all unless i'm at a bar, and i only go to the bar to see concerts.

it's not about the drugs, it's about the music. live music is fun to experience on drugs. but, no music? then no drugs.

but, i'm really more excited right now about celebrating my actual right to be clear-headed than i am about celebrating a so-called right to be stoned.

i simply don't want to be inebriated right now. at all.

oh, and that's five months straight edge now, if you're keeping track - although i've noticed a big difference in cognition since getting out of that apartment. longer days. clearer thoughts. getting away from the marijuana has been a definitely huge benefit, so far, on my mental health.

as i'm currently unable to get to detroit to see shows, i could very well remain straight edge for months. there's just simply not a lot of reasons for me to get stoned, here in windsor, as the music scene is broadly absolutely terrible.

i could maybe order a little for christmas, but i'm not really thinking about it right now.

but, nobody at any level is suggesting any kind of sexual misconduct at all.

it's entirely and solely about housing.

i just wanted that point made clear.

so, when i told the cop "i'm building a discrimination case.", he should have taken that as a block, and gone back to the woman and said "this person has the right to continue to apply for your properties. you might want to stop replying, for your benefit, as you are just demonstrating their point.".

see, but here's the actual key point.

maybe the cop didn't know that. or, maybe the cop thought the situation required more detailed intervention. i think the cop was acting out a bias, but he may have just legitimately been ignorant. as a cop is not a legal scholar, and their job is not to interpret the law but enforce it, what the cop should have done in that scenario is recognize that a conflict with a citizen over an interpretation of the law exists and go before a judge and seek a warrant.

he didn't do that - he acted without authority, broke the law in the process and committed a number of procedural errors that will eventually result in the charges being dropped, and a civil action against the department.

there's a reason that cops are supposed to ask a judge for a legal interpretation before acting, and this situation is a good demonstration of it.

if i was calling her every other day for more or less any other reason, she may have a moral argument, even if she doesn't have a legal one. it is in fact true that she asked me to stop applying. isn't that enough?

not in housing, and not in employment, and not in other scenarios that are governed by human rights legislation. so long as a property is available for rent, or a job opening is available, they have to take the applications, by law - because i have a right to be treated as an equal applicant.

now, that doesn't mean she had the obligation to rent to me. it's up to me to build a discrimination case. and, the less information she provided to me, the harder it would be for me to do that.

but, she can't treat a housing application like a request for personal contact, and then tell me i can't apply for the housing because she doesn't want to speak with me, personally. and, i do think it is clear that these ideas are confused in her mind, and also confused in the mind of the officer.

if she did not want to rent to me, she should have ignored me. but, by getting aggressive with me in demanding i stop replying, she's opened herself up to litigation - and cannot claim she's being harassed as a way out of it.

i just want to make a point clear, as people tend to jump to conclusions.

the accusations against me are not related to any question of sexuality in any way. i am not charged with sexual harassment, and i have not met this person formally or been in the same room as them, as far as i know. there is no suggestion by the police or by the complainant that i have made any sort of sexual or romantic advance towards this person. the issue has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with gender and nothing to do with any kind of interpersonal relationship at all.

what i am accused of is being overly aggressive in my search for housing, and not reacting to a request to stop replying to an ad that was reposted on a daily basis. i want to be clear that i didn't reply to the same ad over and over, so much as i replied to each reposting once. so, i would reply once on every repost.

there is an error in law being made by both the complainant and the officer, in the belief that they have some kind of right to ask me to stop applying, as the communication was related to housing, and housing must always be open to all applicants. the crown will eventually realize this, or be told it by myself or the judge. the basis of the complaint is that the property owner was annoyed that i continued to apply, even after i'd been told that she would not rent to me, because i'm disabled. she thinks she should have a final say in that matter, no doubt because she thinks she has property rights. so, she thinks she has the authority and the right to tell me to stop applying. but, she's wrong. she's actually legally obligated to continue accepting applications from me, so long as she continues to advertise the housing. and, as long as the housing remained available, her continued refusal to communicate with me is not grounds for a harassment suit, but evidence of her active discrimination against me.

i explained this to the complainant, but she either didn't understand it or refused to understand it. i explained it to the cop, but he is a legit moron and wasn't interested in anything except ordering me around. i have not yet had the chance to explain it to the crown, but expect a more informed response when i do.

the charges are for "criminal harassment", which in canada very specifically means repeated threatening or intimidating behaviour. the crown will need to demonstrate that the woman had grounds to believe i was a threat to her safety, or a threat to the safety of her family. and, this is ridiculous - i was merely exercising my rights to apply to the application as an equal, and on an equal basis, rights she appears to not accept or understand.

it is not a sexual harassment charge or a sexual assault charge, and the communication was at no point sexual in nature. i was concerned solely with the question of housing, and with the related question of discrimination on her behalf. and, she was simply annoyed by the repeated applications, which is not something she has grounds to press charges on.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/if-trump-just-got-bounce-i-might.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-absurdity-of-stealing-low.html

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.

if i can figure out why a conflict of interest was declared, it should help me move forward on the s. 9.

so, i'm going to talk to duty counsel in the morning, and may decide to retain counsel, in the end.

i've decided that a charter challenge under section 9 - arbitrary detention - is the correct way for me to go after the cops, on this. i just need to figure out what the mechanism of doing so is.

Detention undertaken for improper motives may be held to be arbitrary. Anything in the circumstances of the detention or arrest which would make it suspect on any other ground, such as an arrest made because a police officer was biased towards a person of a different race or nationality, or where there was a personal enmity between a police officer directed towards the person arrested, if established, might have the effect of rendering invalid an otherwise lawful arrest (R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241 at 251-252). “Individual liberty interests are fundamental to the Canadian constitutional order. Consequently, any intrusion upon them must not be taken lightly and, as a result, police officers do not have carte blanche to detain. The power to detain cannot be exercised on the basis of a hunch, nor can it become a de facto arrest” (Mann, supra at paragraph 35). 

the justification made by the officer is that i was "unpredictable", which is essentially a hunch - and a poor reflection of the facts, as my behaviour was incredibly predictable: i replied to the same ad (when it was reposted) the same way every day. absolutely predictable. and, i do believe i can demonstrate a bias & enmity, as well.

i believe that i need to launch the charter challenge at the pre-trial.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art9.html

i think this kind of opens up a different question: why do we segregate these kinds of things by gender in the first place? why do we have male and female races? are women not strong enough to compete with men?

"but, the science.."

what the science says is that sexual dimorphism in humans is broadly not separable from natural variation, and what little dimorphism exists is largely a consequence of sexual selection. the science does not uphold the idea that bicycle races should be gender segregated. at all.

but, let's be directly empirical. run a co-ed race. see what happens. my prediction: sex is not a predictive determinant in the outcome.

so, people are going to push back against this, and the counter-response is going to be to try and argue that it's a lot of transphobic, or broadly anti-trans bias. no. the truth, as i've been pointing out for years, is much more surreal: what we call radical feminists are really operating from a point of deep misogyny.

...because the point they're beginning at is the assumption that the women can't compete with the men, and that just isn't true, to begin with.

https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/news/canada/by-winning-a-canadian-transgender-cyclist-fans-flames-of-gender-politics/wcm/40df37e7-0233-4bff-b3ba-195547b36ffa

you know, this is a hybrid offence.

they could have moved forward with an indictment.

i want a preliminary inquiry, so i'm going to ask for one. we'll see if they give me one or not.

"listen, here, nigger. if you call me a racist to my face one more time, i'm going to charge you with being uppity, and send you back to the assembly line where you belong. you got it, nigger?".

and, now that i've seen the disclosure, i think it's a better idea to wait to file the human rights complaint, because i can use the acquittal or dismissal in the claim.

it doesn't matter how much money or influence she has, she's only half at fault. but, it certainly demonstrates the point.

"how dare that nigger call me a racist? i'm going to lock her up for vagrancy. the nerve."

and, what i should do is state on the record what happened.

- i was arrested on sept 24th at 21:00.
- the crown argued that i should be held indefinitely, without bail.
- i was fingerprinted on sept 25th at around 12:00. i dunno; i was in jail.
- the justice rejected their claims and let me out with $100 recognizance, and an order to not touch guns or contact the complainant. i was released around 17:00.

this would suggest the crown was proceeding by indictment. right? fingerprints. no bail.

- i requested disclosure informally on sept 27th, and formally on oct 1st.
- i came in on oct 10th for my first appearance, to inform the court that i had not received disclosure.
- on oct 11th, i was told there was a conflict of interest on the file and it would be moved to the chathham office.
- on oct 17th, i appeared before the court to inform them that i had not received disclosure yet.
- on oct 22nd, i was told the crown would be proceeding summarily.

so, my fingerprints should be immediately destroyed, then. right?

i was in custody, i could hardly refuse.

if i get the right justice, she could even throw the case out right then and there.

still awake.

i really thought i had the right to elect to proceed via indictment if i wanted, but it seems like the difference comes down to appeal. and to an extent the indictment is just skipping to the higher court.

it seems like i get a pre-trial, which should give me the resolution meeting that i suspect will lead to dropped charges. that's good.

but, i'm not going to get a preliminary hearing. or, maybe, the trial is itself the preliminary hearing - and the appeal becomes the actual trial.

if i was proceeding by indictment as i thought, i would get the opportunity to put the case before a provincial court to determine if the evidence should go to trial in the superior court. there would be a hearing in provincial court, but no trial. if the provincial court decided there was enough evidence for a trial, it would just go right to superior court. but, because i'm proceeding summarily, i get a trial at the provincial court, instead. if i feel there's an error in law at the provincial court, i can then appeal to the superior court.

so, i think the difference is a little less than i initially thought, it's just a question of where the trial begins at. i was thinking that a preliminary hearing was an extra step that you introduce before you go to trial. but, it seems more like it's skipping a step, really, by eliminating the trial at the provincial court.

there's a part during the trial where i can move to dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence - meaning i can treat the trial like a preliminary hearing, to an extent.

so, i'm still going in to set a meeting with the crown on wednesday, although i'm also going to ask for some more documents - all of the emails, and the complainant's impact statement. i will have documents to give the crown at the resolution meeting, including the opird report, the transcript of the bail hearing & my own written statements in this space.

one of the issues at trial is going to be a debate over what happened the week previously.

and, there is no mention of the 4 am phone call, at all - which i have the recording of.

kijiji only keeps responses for a month or so, so the direct responses are all deleted.

so, i can't provide those responses.

that might seem backwards, but the point is that i'm only sending my phone number. and, the ad was reposted daily, so the response schedule was in fact reasonable.

what i'm concerned about is that "x responses were sent on this day" leaves too much to the imagination. this goes back to the error in law made by the officer - the idea that harassment is the same thing as annoyance. if i'm being charged with annoying a rich woman, i'll plead guilty. but, harassment is something more precise than that. so, i actually want the full response entered into the evidence list, to demonstrate that there was nothing threatening in it.

afaik, all of the missing responses are one line of text - my voip box #. and, that is a reasonable response to an ad.

i'm otherwise willing to stand up for my responses and essentially provide a commentary for them in court.

and, right now i am sleepy. the truth is that i've had a long day.

kijiji only keeps responses for a month or so, so the direct responses are all deleted.

so, the ad response record is incomplete and misleading - not quite enough to claim the information is false, if close, but enough to request actual copies of the responses. you can't say something like "x emails were sent on this day". that's not admissible evidence. you have to actually present the actual responses. 

i'm also apparently missing the impact statement that was read to me at the bail hearing, and which was what i really wanted.

so, i guess that the next step is to request further disclosure.

but, i wanted disclosure to review the information, to check for inaccuracies and misleading statements, and to gather information for the complaint. and, while i think i can represent myself well. what i need to understand is the process.

i understand that they should not have fingerprinted me, but they did. now, getting those prints destroyed is my actual primary concern. a lawyer would know how to react to that. it's one thing to read the rules and point out an error, it's another to know how to hold people accountable for it.

i suspect, to begin with, that i should have a strong argument to get those prints destroyed. who do i make that argument to? the justice?

a commonality throughout the documents is not that i've committed a crime, but broadly suspecting that i might commit one, maybe.

....meaning i was arrested on suspicion that i might commit a crime, rather than on a claim i actually committed one.

and, that's not how things work in a country like canada.

i'm going to be seeking a payout from the cops on this. horrifically egregious...

ok, we've got the responses in the file, and i can see what she's trying to claim.

there are some technically false statements in the report, and they may have played a role in how things unfolded, but, overall, it seems like a schizophrenic fantasy built on an exaggeration, rather than a completely false attribution.

it seemed completely invented at first, but an unreasonable misinterpretation of the responses could have led to the statements, as filed.

there's also some files in here from 2014/2015 that are...

well, i thought it was my mom that sent the cops here on a suicide call. she denied it, though. i haven't really spoken to her much since. there's a confirmation, though. hrmmn. mom lied to me. sucks. but, what do you do when you confirm a five year old lie that you saw right through in the first place?

i can't get into the details of it, but these reports - by an organization called COAST - are so far removed from reality as to be comical. the way i'd describe it is if you could imagine a child having a detailed discussion with einstein about relativity, and then trying to write a summary of that discussion. on top of that, the agents working for COAST appear to have made things up entirely out of nowhere.

i have never requested medication from anybody, with the exception of the hormones. in fact, i am broadly opposed to the idea of medication in mental health - and have written widely about it over the course of many years. any suggestions that i was ever suicidal as a reaction to an inability to gain access to any medications are completely invented out of whole cloth. in fact, it is exceedingly unlikely that i would fill any medication that was given to me, as i would not want it to affect my individuality or my ability to create art. again: i've written about this extensively over a long time period. my contemplation of suicide during this period of time was a purely rational reaction to my disinterest in labour, and my preference for death over labour.

i do not know why a support worker would write a false report of this nature.

i would like these documents to be destroyed, frankly - not because they say anything about me specifically, but because they have absolute inventions and poor interpretations in them. i mean, what do you do when you get your file and realize the people writing into it are literally making shit up? honestly?

the notes from that period are actually up here, so i'd advise anybody interested in the question to consult my own perception of this rather than that of the COAST workers.

this is legitimately a completely false report.

i have to be careful about what i'm publishing here because i can't share the information in the report, but there's three possibilities:

1) she misattributed some of the responses. that is, she assigned responses that were not mine to me. if this woman suffers from a psychological condition - as i believe it is clear that she does - then this may have been an error brought on by psychosis.
2) or, it might be done on purpose.
3) or, she just made it up.

if 2 or 3, the purpose would be to prevent the human rights complaint.

i haven't made it through the document yet, but, right now, it seems like the thing i'm going to be requesting on wednesday is the responses to the ads themselves - which are being referenced, but might not actually be in the document.

and, is it time to legally change my name to jessica, just to be safe on the border check?

hey.

if you want to bring a social activist in on false charges, you should expect a lengthy process out of it.

wait.

ok.

so, i was arrested on an indictable offence - and fingerprinted - but then charged with a summary conviction, in the end.

hrmmn.

like, they tried to hold me on bail, and then they charged me with a summary offence? if you're going to hold me on bail, indict me, you fuckers.

i'm going to look into this further tonight, but i think it's time to call a lawyer. that might be the best way to get what i want. it seems like they fucked up enough that the charges should probably be withdrawn or dropped, immediately. but, i want to do this in a way that makes sure that the file is destroyed - as it should have never been created - and the cop and the woman are both held legally accountable.

again: i'm not looking for an easy way out. i'm looking for justice.

i got my disclosure; it's on a dvd, and we'll see what it says.

but, the information sheet made a few things clear.

they're not seeking jail time, which undermines the entire premise of the charges. i'm supposedly a threat to the public. if that is true, why aren't they seeking jail time?

and, they want to proceed summarily.

so, they want this to be done quickly - they want me to plead guilty to a minor offence, take it on the chin and be on with it. why spends months fighting a minor offence?

i'm not going to do that. i'm going to request an indictment. i'm going to fight the charges with everything i can. there's going to be a witness evaluation. a pre-trial. i'm going to subpoena the cop. i'm going to make a huge deal out of this, and drag it on for months or years.

why?

because the logic is backwards - i don't gain anything by getting this done with quickly. i lose border access, and possibly run into problems with my income. but, if i drag it out, i gain the possibility of compensation, increase the chances of the officer facing discipline, get to the point of charging the woman with filing a false report and get to my end point - which is not even acquittal, but file destruction.

i had a tremendous injustice done to me by a thug that should be in jail and a woman that belongs in an institution. i'm not going to forget about it. i'm going to fight until every single person responsible for this gets what they deserve.

and, they will get what they deserve.

trust me.

first, i'm going to review these files. but, i should be ready to file the human rights complaint in the morning.

no.

listen.

i'm perfectly happy - and in fact somewhat eager - to be the punk in the court room. we've swung far too far to the right recently, and this patriarchal faux feminism masquerading as progressivism is a prime example of how we've taken massive steps backwards over the last several years.

my defense is going to be to appeal to liberal rights theory and libertarian values, in opposition to this fake feminism, which is just a front for authoritarian capitalism.

but, it's not just that my defense requires this - the society requires this.

i've been as clear as i can that i'm on the other side of this argument, and i'm both eager and able to make these arguments in a court of law.

yeah?

well, fuck you and the tipper gore you rode in on.

so, i'm back to stable access and could potentially get back to work over the next few days. i still don't have those shelves i've been putting off getting for years, but everything else seems to have fallen in line over the last few days, so now i just need for the court to disclose so i can take this psychotic, decrepit, senile old dyke to the human rights commission and teach her a fucking lesson in public law. seven figures. i'll let the crown pull me along as long as they'd like, but this is ultimately not in the public interest or a worthwhile use of public tax money or public resources at the court house, and i consequently have enough faith in the court system that somebody along the way is eventually going to say "this is retarded" and pull the plug on it.

the woman at the counter said tonight or tomorrow. i'll need to take a run down this afternoon to see. and, it's going to be interesting to see what they give me.

there's an off chance that they might try to arrest me for filing the complaint, as it's "indirect contact" but if they try that then it will just expose the fraud underlying the charges. you could imagine that bail hearing, right.

"you arrested her for filing a human rights complaint?"
"well, it was a breach of the recognizance."
"and, why was she arrested in the first place?"
"for pointing out that she was being discriminated against, and threatening to file a human rights complaint."
"you charged her with harassment for 'threatening' to file a human rights complaint?"

i mean, i kind of have to do it, to make sense of my defense - which is that when a thug shows up at your door, in a blue uniform or not, and threatens to put you in jail for exercising your rights, you are obligated to exercise those rights. and, if that thug arrests you for standing up for yourself, that thug will need to face the consequences of his criminality, in the end.

one thing at a time.

i need disclosure, first. and, if they give me something redacted or something half-assed, i'll go back to the court and demand they do better. i'm not willing to move to the next step until i'm happy with disclosure, unless the justice enforces it. and, if she does, the pre-trial is going to be a messy affair.

as previously, my wholesale reseller isp is completely incompetent. they insisted on a remote install in a unit with no lines in it, and of course it failed. i have to wait until monday for a cogeco tech. it's cheap when it's working...

i think the kid upstairs is smoking inside and that she might think she can blame it on me. she might be skipping school, too. the reality is that i quit smoking almost three years ago and never smoked inside, anyways. so, she's in for a rude surprise when i point the truth out to her dad. and, daddy's going to have to believe me, too. i'm not yet at the point of bringing it up. but, the situation is incomparably better, and i'm broadly happy with the move.

i want to note here that my netbook was turned off at some point yesterday, when i was in court. that's when i was gone, between 10:00 and 2:00, roughly. i last used the device on the afternoon of the 16th, was home on the evening of the 16th and was home on the evening of the 17th. i discovered it on the afternoon of the 18th. i reset the device as a precaution. but, i'm more concerned about the potentiality of police harassment - it seems like somebody took a look around when they knew i was gone.

i lost tabs, but i can get them back. i'm more upset about the unjustifiable surveillance.

i was hoping the charges would be dropped by now, but i need to check for disclosure again pretty much now. i don't need time to set a resolution date: i know what i'm expecting, which is a lot of contrived bullshit. but, the crown may need time to make sense of the absurdity before it.

if the crown is smart, it will conclude that it will cause less damage to itself if it drops the charges than it will if it discloses. and, while i'm likely to look for a foia request regardless, i should get what i need for the discrimination lawsuit out of the bail hearing.

i reiterate: i was arrested on false charges to prevent me from filing a discrimination suit by a cop that was already out to get me. and, the documentation produced by the process should help me go after them both, if it's released.

so, this is the choice the crown is making: does it want to risk the consequences of disclosure on an extremely weak case that it will probably lose at the preliminary stage, or is it better off backing away from the situation altogether, to prevent the consequences of disclosing the corruption?

personally, i'm in this for the long run and looking to make people suffer for what they've done.

i do not yet have internet. tuesday. maybe.

i'm typing from a brand new chrome book, an ibm thinkpad. this will make blogging remotely a lot more possible, for me. it's a big update. i just got fed up with being non-mobile, and had no interest in learning how to type on a phone....

the move itself went flawlessly, although i'm still waiting on the washing machine. tuesday. maybe.

i had my hearing on wednesday, and found out on thursday that the prosecutor has been removed/resigned due to a conflict of interest. i don't know the details, but i suspect a relationship with the cop. so, they're bringing in a prosecutor from out of town. but, i expect the charges to be immediately dropped. i have to reappear on wednesday, and i'm going to request a stay due to delay on disclosure, if the charges aren't already dropped.

i'm going to wait to type further.

i haven't been paying attention to the local elections, but dilbert is a dork and he needs to go. he's running on debt reduction in a town that needs massive increases in social spending to deal with a serious housing crisis. what a goof.

it seems like frank dyck is the green candidate, but we need to be careful about splitting the vote. that said, i don't know if marchand is really worth voting for or just one of these phony liberal types. he was apparently involved with the chamber of commerce. that's an ominously bad sign.

the city needs a left-wing populist that is willing to generously spend money on housing and infrastructure. if you think marchand is going to do that, then go for it. but, if you think he's just a phony liberal, don't bother - vote for dyck instead.

so, i've started moving some small things over, already.

i need to spend the night packing what's left. i may have to take a few more short runs.

it seems like there's been a second overdose in the alley at the 7/11 in the vlogs. it's for the best that i get out of this neighbourhood.

i have a truck coming tomorrow morning.

i should hopefully get the keys and the notice of abandonment to my landlord tomorrow afternoon.

i can't tell you where i'm moving for at least the next ten days.

the hydro switches on wednesday.

if everything works out, i'll have a teksavvy technician available on thursday morning, although i'll need to call on wednesday night to make sure. and, i'll type up some long updates, at that time.

i expect full disclosure by the end of the week.

i'm vlogging. and it'll come up relatively soon, actually. i should finally get back to work in the next week or two.

i wouldn't expect much in the way of updates until then.

so, to begin with, let's boycott american milk.

i drink soy milk, anyways.

i'm going to wait to comment, but i suspect that the canadian contribution is the part of the deal i'll like the least. intellectual property rights are an abomination and should be abolished, granted, but biologics are a rather restricted class of drugs, are they not?

how did the canadian liberal party become the mouthpiece of corporate america?

we'll talk soon.

i need to move.

the thing about being a leftist is that you don't see the world in terms of nationality, but in terms of class. i'm not concerned about americans or canadians or mexicans, i'm concerned about workers and capitalists and landowners.

i care more about american workers than i do about canadian landowners, and more about canadian workers than i do about american capitalists.

and, i'm going to side with what's best for the proletariat on both sides of the border, not what's best for the canadian elite.

i got kind of busy yesterday. today is going to be ridiculous. there'll be a lengthy update some time soon.

so, what actually happened? what's the story, here?

around 20:00 on monday evening, i sat down to make some spaghetti. as i was about to slice into my tomato, some cops banged on my door.

as mentioned, my primary concern was avoiding resisting arrest, so i was very compliant. whether i've committed a crime or not, resisting arrest is always one, so you don't want to do that. 

i was arrested for "criminal harassment", and brought to the station in cuffs in a windowless van. i called a lawyer when i got there, for the purposes of informing somebody i was in jail, but i did not expect to be in custody for more than a few minutes. i am, after all, being charged with repeatedly applying for an ad.

i was instead placed in a holding cell for over twenty hours. i spent most of that time screaming for access to a judge, who i knew damned well would snicker at the situation, yelling the situation into the cameras (for the record) and counting to....i made it 10,500 before my throat forced me to stop. i suspect i could have counted to 20,000 if i had metallic vocal chords.

i decided i would charge $1000 emotional damages for every second left to rot in a cell for the crime of replying to an ad. so, when i get around to it, the suit against the city will be for $11 000 000. that should be enough to find somewhere to live that is smoke-free, right?

i did not sleep. i urinated once, close to 16:00 the next day. i ate one of the three meals they gave me.

i was brought out to see several people during the day, including duty counsel and a representative for legal aid. as mentioned, duty counsel was a conservative older lady that i trust was acting in what she perceived were my best interests, but she seemed quite concerned that i was going to become irrational in the court, and feared i would harm my own well being. i fully recognize that she spends most of her days helping people with low levels of education get out of terrible situations, and there's obviously a lot of altruism in that, but it sets up a mentality of fiduciary duty; she wanted me to go sit in the corner and be quiet and let her deal with it. which i did actually do, because, on some level, she was absolutely right. i just worry that i wasn't present for a set of important conversations. it's one thing to tell me to be quiet in the room and let me listen, and another to tell me to sit in the other room.

it seemed like the outcome of the hearing had already been decided when they finally brought me into the court room at the very end of the day. the justice was clearly baffled by both the situation and the charges, stating into the record that it was unacceptable to arrest somebody with no prior record and leave them in a cell for twenty hours. i was not permitted to speak and was in fact asked to sit down repeatedly, but i think i might have helped her understand, if i was permitted to do so. duty counsel was a nervous wreck, clearly frightened i was going to undo her careful work...

but, i stayed quietly. i didn't sing o canada through air guitar. i didn't call the judge a fascist. i didn't curse the accused, or swear at the prosecutor or do anything of the things that....that she probably actually deals with on a daily basis. it was perhaps incorrect to see me the same way as most of the people she represents, but i can't fault her for it. that's what she knows. that's what she sees.

the judge only seemed willing to reject the crown's argument up to the point of triviality. i suspect that she would have dismissed the charges if she could, but, given that she couldn't, she had to leave the conditions in place. so long as the charges exist, i must be ordered not to reply to the ad. and, while she did not feel that she could remove the recognizance altogether, she reduced it from $2000 to $100 - a functional dismissal.

she repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to justify the conditions.

when the crown read the charges into the record, she talked about how the owner of the apartment felt unable to show the apartment to other "legitimate" applicants because she feared i might be using false identities to reply to the ad (which is simply schizophrenic nonsense, imagined whole cloth, and without the slightest evidentiary basis), and told me i was "not welcome here". i reacted by scoffing at the absurdity of the presented scenario, and the oppression inherent in the language - and the justice seemed to agree with me.

so, i can't go near guns. like i'd go near guns, right. that's a standard condition, and i had no argument, because i don't care. and, i can't reply to the ad until the charges are dropped or defeated. if i do either of those two things, i will be arrested a second time, and have to pay $100.

i need to reappear on october 10th, if the charges are not dropped before then.

to me, continuing to reply to this ad is a rights issue. i hardly expect to be approved. but, i have the right to be annoying - independently of whatever schizophrenic fantasies anybody wants to have, or pretend to have. however, i have been charged with a crime and agreed to not engage in this behaviour, until such a point comes that a judge upholds my right to be annoying. you could articulate this different ways: i am providing for due process, or allowing for judicial review. but, it's one thing to tell a cop that he's wrong and close the door and another thing to get charged by that cop and go to court and need to have a judge state that the cop is wrong. i will expect compensation, in the long run.

i was released a little after 17:00.

yeah. ok. careful language in the code.

"release from custody by officer in charge" - that was the warrant/non-warrant binary, which comes with the $500 max.

but, i was ordered released by the judge. so, i don't have a max, because the cops didn't actually agree to releasing me at all.

the cops didn't want to release me at all.

for the crime of replying to an ad.

lol. fucking idiots.

but, listen: the justice thought this was retarded, entered into the record that she was upset at the amount of time i spent in custody and ordered me released on the most lenient conditions that she could. i expect any judge to agree entirely with the justice: this is vexatious. i fully acknowledge that these details are something i'm just learning about now, but i understand the legality of the situation fairly well and it's a flatly stupid case. in the end, the more ridiculous the crown is about it, the harder the judge is going to come down on it.

i snickered when the charges were read, and the duty counsel cringed, but the justice smiled - she agreed.

this is stupid.

is the difference that a regular release is agreed upon by the cops, and a judicial release is ordered by the judge?

'cause, if that's the case, it was clear to me that the judge thought this was a pretty stupid thing to charge somebody with.

ok.

on third thought, i'm in a different section, a "judicial interim release". see, lawyers aren't logicians. so, they don't recognize a binary between "arrest with warrant" and "arrest without a warrant". i would think that these are the only two possibilities, but apparently a third one exists.

there are no maximum recognizance conditions set on a judicial interim release, and that is apparently true whether there was a warrant involved, or not.

but, see, this is the kind of thing that i didn't have explained to me. what is the difference between this situation and a regular release on recognizance? in both situations, the accused is being released before a trial, right? so, why is there a separate section for this?

well, if he arrested me without a warrant on a hybrid offence (that is unlikely to result in jail time), it's just another strike against a guy that shouldn't have the job that he has.

frankly, i'd be surprised if a judge issued a warrant.

i guess we'll find out.

actually, the maximum amount is $500, regardless.

period.

there is no situation where they can lawfully ask for more than $500 recognizance.

yet, they did.

when the crown attorney breaks the law in court, right?

"in progressive canada, the (in)justice system commits crimes against YOU."

so, that's something else i need to figure out - was i arrested with or without a warrant?

and, see, here's the thing.

maybe i could have stopped all this bullshit before it started if i knew this stuff off of the top of my head. but, what fun is that? see, then the cop gets to keep his job, and i don't get to sue for damages for harassment and negligence.

there will be a proper investigation, in the end. and, the fuckers will be held accountable for their errors.

the thing going through my head at the time was "i don't want to resist arrest, i'll figure this out afterwards". so, i was compliant for that reason. because you hear about that all of the time - cops show up to arrest you for swearing in church, and then instead of the cop getting fired, you end up in jail for assaulting a police officer.

you know, i'm wondering something else.

i didn't ask for a warrant. maybe i should have.

these are the rules for releasing somebody arrested via warrant.

"(b) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge without sureties in the amount not exceeding five hundred dollars that the officer in charge directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security"

they tried to charge me $2000, but the justice said that was crazy because there was no evidence (take note.) and cut it down to $100. so, in the end, what happened was lawful.

but, did the crown make an unlawful request, or was i arrested without a warrant?

because, if i was charged with a hybrid offence without a warrant, i should not have been arrested at all - i should have been asked to appear in court.

the more incompetence i can uncover,  the bigger the payout.

the duty counsel got me out of jail without any meaningful conditions. that was what she said she wanted to do, and that's what she did, and on a certain level she's right - that's the most immediate concern.

but, if it was done at the expense of me understanding the accusations against me, or putting me at a disadvantage in relation to the trial, then it was a pyrrhic victory.

i need to confront her about what documentation she has to pass on to me, tomorrow.

the crown did read something into the record.

it could be that that was all there was to it, but i know i wasn't getting the whole picture. what do you do, in that scenario? you can hardly escape the cage and barge in. you just have to figure out what happened and hold people responsible for it accountable for it.

they obviously can't conduct a bail hearing without me, and then tell me that evidence is admitted later. that's all on the record. they'll all get fired.

but, none of this can happen, it's all impossible.

so, we'll see what the transcript says, right?

i was not asked to testify.

i was not asked to present evidence.

i was told this would occur later, both by the counsel provided and by the justice.

again: i accepted duty counsel because i was unclear of the proper procedure and unable to research it. when told that the evidence would be presented later, i knew it seemed wrong, but i deferred, due to being unable to verify it. and, i am confident that the charges would have been dropped outright if i had been given the chance to present anything at all resembling a case.

hrmmn.

if i got fucked around at the bail hearing, that's just another reason to sue the city.

let's see what the transcripts say...

i have neither heard nor seen, in writing, any allegations made against me.

see, this is not what happened.

and, i asked about it, repeatedly.

i was told by both duty counsel and by the justice that no analysis of the evidence would occur until a pre-trial.

i was brought into the court at 16:45 and asked if i agreed to the conditions or not. i did not see a witness. i did not see an officer. i did not get a chance to present evidence. i pointed out that this seems wrong, and was told otherwise.

i have not met my accuser.

the more layers of corruption there are, the more layers that will fall, in the end.

let's see what the transcript says...

http://lawfacts.ca/node/146

ok.

i'm going to wait and talk to a lawyer about the holding cell video, as there's no obvious way to do it. i'll probably need to make a request to a judge.

i have a stress disorder. putting me in a cell on trumped up charges is pretty egregious. i don't think it'll be hard to get a judge to release the footage. but, it's going to take an argument of some sort. that's ok.

right now, i need to focus on getting full disclosure.

...and, on determining whether a part of the bail hearing happened without me, or not. i suspect that i missed some of it...it just didn't seem like the whole thing, to me...

i was arrested for replying to an advertisement on the internet, and held in a cell for twenty hours.

i'm sure he thought it was very funny.

but, it was also very illegal.

hey, listen.

this cop made a huge mistake for the benefit of his ego. it's like having sex with a camel: you might enjoy it for a few seconds, but then you have to live with the consequences.

and, he's going to pay the price for that mistake.

yeah, so, with the bail hearing, i should order a transcript, and i've sent out an email about it to a transcriptionist.

it should cost roughly $20, but we'll see an estimate for it.

now, how do i ask for video footage of myself in detention? that could be harder.

because i'm not licensed, i need a judge to order the audio from the bail hearing.

that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?

worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.

i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?

it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.

ok.

no, i knew this already...you have to hire a transcription service to get transcripts...and that's expensive...

i wonder if i can just order the audio for $20 or something.

so, what do i need to do for tomorrow?

1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...

i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.

i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.

i've never seen a bar exam, i don't know how i'd do on one.

is it oral or written?

i guess he wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom

i'm going to get something to eat first, but this looks like what i'm up to.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure

my voice is a little better, now.

i've graduated from beginner trumpet player to sounding like stephen hawking.

maybe i'll do some physics tonight? naw.

i know, i'm such a badass, aren't i.

sexy, isn't it?

lol.

so, i'm going to write the crown a letter requesting immediate disclosure and leave it at the court house tomorrow morning. i just need to figure out the proper protocol...

and, i can be persistent about that, too.

what are they going to do?

charge me with harassment?

ok.

i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.

so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.

one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...

i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.

if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.

imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.

so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.

i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.

but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.

at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.

i suspect that the actual truth is that the situation was driven by the officer, who essentially filed a false report. but, this is what we'll need to determine over the upcoming weeks. either:

1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,

2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.

so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.

we'll figure this out, soon enough.