i mean, what is the guy thinking?

did he think it would be funny?

what a fucking idiot.

fwiw, i am also now pretty sure that it is the guy upstairs that is smoking, and i'm just appalled by that, and don't know how to react. i can hear him hacking and coughing, as he's smoking.

so, it seems like the fucking low life really did coerce a non-smoker into his basement with a non-smoking lease, with the full intent of smoking in the building, himself.

and, i'm just astounded by it. i'm disgusted by it.

i'm going to focus more on the stuff with the cops for now, and deal with him afterwards.

yeah....i'm not sure it would help now...

if i were a more wealthy person, and i had a lawyer, and it came to me or my lawyer's attention that officers were being sent to my home to arrest me without a warrant, i could have run away and sent that lawyer to the justice to argue that the officer is statutorily bound to seek a warrant. but, what good does that do me, now? these are the same arguments i would make in a civil case.

i've mentioned before that my primary concern at the time was avoiding any perception that i was resisting arrest. i didn't ask anybody if they had a warrant, and don't think it would have modified anybody's behaviour, if i did. however, i yelled and screamed to see a judge for most of the time i was in custody, unsure if i had access to one overnight (and i don't think i did, in hindsight.).

i'm going to keep thinking about this, but, for right now, i should get back to what i was doing.

i've already missed the deadlines, and this is very blurry.

i think what i'll have to do is wait for the opird response, as the opird is a more traditional administrative body. but, it's not going to let me frame the issue the way i want to.

hrmmn.

what i'm looking for isn't habeas corpus, though.

habeas corpus is a review over the grounds for detention, and that happened, and it was ruled there weren't any. but, it wasn't a review over the grounds for the charges - which should have been dealt with in a warrant request. so, the bail hearing transcript is helpful, but not sufficient in reconstructing the missing component.

and, regarding the cheese wrappers...

i'm thinking i should wait it out. it seems like the technology is currently in development.

an apparent problem is that the fda won't allow for the recycling of food packaging into more food packaging for contamination reasons, which is perhaps overly cautious - they are melting the stuff down. nonetheless, it means that you can't recycle cheese wrappers back into cheese wrappers. as a lot of this packaging is actually engineered for specific purposes, that makes finding something to do with it somewhat challenging. some cursory research suggests that you could convert this particular blend primarily into plastic bags, at this timer.

it would be nice if somebody would just warehouse it, then. well, the idea is to keep it out of the fucking landfill as much as it is to actually reuse it. i'd be just as happy to send it to an empty warehouse in detroit until somebody figures it out. you know?

so if anybody wants a pile of pet/evoh black diamond parmalat cheese wrappers...

ok.

so, if i were to try this, the question i'd have to put to judicial review is not whether the officer should have made the arrest, but whether the officer should have sought a warrant. and, i'd be looking at a correctness standard primarily, and a reasonableness standard, second.

the thing is that you can't determine what a judge would have ruled, right. there's a spectrum. and, judges - unlike cops - have independence.

so, the intent would be to get a ruling that states that the officer acted outside of his authority in making the arrest - and i think this is actually blatantly obvious, in canadian law. i was not caught in the act. and, there was no evidence that i posed anybody any harm. i was at home. so, he's supposed to get a warrant. clearly.

then, what? do we send it to a justice for a ruling? do we use the justice's statements at the bail hearing? do the reviewing judges make the decision?

i think this is novel, granted. but, i think it's a good, idea, too - and that this kind of enforced oversight is something worth fighting for.

what would happen if i made a request for judicial review to determine whether the officer had a right to make an arrest?

i feel like this is the fundamental question at hand.

it would perhaps be unusual, but would it be wrong?

i guess i need to see the bail hearing transcript, first. and, i need to get a response from the opird, too.

so, to recap, we're looking at a civil case over:

- s. 7 & 9 & 10a & 12, arbitrary detainment. warrantless arrest on a hybrid charge, and no cause presented for detainment. the arrest shouldn't have happened at all, as no evidence could be produced to prosecute with.

- s. 8, illegal search/seizure. if it is true that i was illegally detained, and that the arrest was unjustified, i was illegally printed while illegally detained.

- s. 6, mobility rights. the illegally obtained prints are preventing me from travelling abroad.

- s. 2b), freedom of speech/expression. i am not looking for a law to be changed, as there is no law to change.

again, i'm left to wonder if my situation is so egregious as to be unique, because i'm not immediately finding information on s. 6 related to the question of fingerprinting on withdrawn charges.

the charter was written in 1982, so the americans have two hundreds of precedent on us, here. but, what i'm looking for is an argument around the idea of due process, which seems to be more developed in the american jurisprudence.

i was arrested without a warrant, and charged while in custody without a judge ever even looking at the evidence. when the justice looked at it, i was released with no meaningful conditions. so, there's no due process, there, and i am, in fact, currently being denied mobility rights in the absence of it.

it's as strong an argument as the rest of it.

and, it goes back to the question of a lack of judicial oversight in the arrest process.

the answer is that you shouldn't print somebody until or unless a judge or justice orders it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

but, if i haven't been clear, the place where the system failed here was that the cop arrested me without seeking a warrant, or even obtaining the evidence - it was purely on hearsay.

i was arrested and fingerprinted on hearsay, and no judge would have allowed that to happen.

we need to reassert the necessity of judicial oversight in the arrest process.

ok.

there's a process, and i'll be pushing it forward as far as i can take it. let's hope they just delete them quickly.

but, i'm going to include mobility rights in the charter challenge, anyways, as a mitigating factor - because i have already had them impacted by the frivolous charges. i mean, this isn't a hypothetical that kicks in if the application is denied - this has already happened.

in the worst case scenario, am i willing to appeal a judicial review to a real court in order to challenge the law that says you can't destroy prints on a secondary offence? well, i think i'm evidence that the law is overly broad - this is essentially a rule that says that any accusation of this sort, however frivolous, must be maintained, forever. and, if i find myself in that situation, it would necessitate that i would have to do it, and demonstrate that the law needs to be changed, as evidenced by the fact that i can't get my prints destroyed. i guess it's sort of circular logic if you're coming at it from a certain perspective, but i can't let the system get away with this.

there should obviously be a discretionary process. even if the nature of the accusations are very serious, that doesn't mean a false accusation should have lifelong consequences.

i mean, this is a serious problem.

the system needs to enforce the warrant requirements far more strenuously. i am now a victim of the officer's behaviour.

and i may have to sue the officer, personally, for damages.

criminal harassment is listed as a secondary offence, which means i may get my print destruction request denied.

yet, the charges should not have been filed. there was no warrant. they were dropped due to a lack of evidence.

if they deny the request, i'll have to include it in the constitutional challenge, as a denial of mobility rights.

so, i finished with my calls yesterday and decided to take a nap from 15:00 until 19:00 to try and cycle myself back around to an overnight schedule, so i'm taking advantage of lower time-of-use rates. there's no longer any reason that i have to be awake during any specific part of the day, so why not just stay up all night?

unfortunately, i crashed until around 23:00, woke up to get a smoothie and then crashed again until 5:00 - partly because i was cold. shit.

i was at the point where i was so hungry i was going blind, and possibly undergoing ketosis. i had two of those kid's meal burgers on monday night and snacked on those raisins all day tuesday, but i hadn't had an actual meal since early on monday morning. i mentioned that my schedule dropped a week, which will be good for my budget in the long run, but i was at the point where i just didn't have the choice. so, i got up to eat, and then crashed again until around 15:00.

i need to have longer than 12 hour days, certainly. but, i need to be eating in off peaks, and i need to not be sleeping during down peaks, if i'm getting my point across. i can't and don't want to sleep from 7:00 to 19:00 every day, but i want to make sure that the period that i do sleep is always in that space.

at this point, i'm no longer interested in taking a shower or putting those clothes away until i get back from my errands on monday. i'm just waiting for the bail hearing transcript before i put in the file destruction request, file the discrimination suit & do the foia requests for the civil suit. right now, i want to get back to the rebuild, and try to get close to the hook-up by monday.

i still can't get through to the health unit to get the file destroyed. i'm getting the idea that this may take a while, and that i may have to find a way to get a judge to order them to do it. ugh.

i got some information back on those cheese wrappers, though - they are pet (#1), but with an evoh coating. i'm now trying to figure out what i can do with them.

but, if things go according to plan, i should be awake and focused on the rebuild for most of the weekend - and should get a lot done.

so, it seems like the most recent chinese containment plan is to arm extremists in central asia to push back against communist expansionism into the region.

that kind of sounds vaguely familiar.

but, it seems reasonable, so i'm not worried. what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/world/asia/congress-uighurs-china-detention.html

it's easy to trot out that old definition of insanity, again - except that one questions whether a different outcome is desirable.

but, this isn't isolated. it's part of a centuries long struggle. and the only real intent is to produce instability.