ok.
so, if i'm going to have to spend the next several months prying the information away from the judge, i'm going to file the civil case, first. that's the big money, anyways.
hey, that's what the city asked for...it's what the city's got...
and, i may have to just go ahead with the human rights complaint, regardless.
this isn't about the prosecutor. i don't care about the prosecutor, and i'm not attacking the court for discrimination. i think the court, itself, actually dealt with the situation well, and i'm disappointed that it's participating in a cover-up. they were never the target, here.
what i want are the statements coming from the complainant, as they were read to me by the prosecutor. i'm going after the audio because it's the source i know. and, that entire section of the audio has been completely erased. gone. kaput. if they're going to wipe the audio, i'm not going to get it in a foia...
it was a smoking gun. and, i'm going to continue to fight for it. but, it's not totally necessary to move the case forwards.
i'm currently pretty tired, so i'm going to take a nap. i'm going to clean a little, shower. i'm going to plan to put this all together next week.
the reality is that i have a very good argument that something is very wrong - i have multiple recollections close to the source, and can point to several things that i remember completely differently. releasing the audio on it's own doesn't help, when it's full of obvious splices and doesn't have a time stamp. if they were going to lie to me in the first place, right? it's still the same basic point - you have to something to hide or you don't.
but, this is why i'm not a lawyer - the system is corrupt to the core, and i didn't want anything to do with it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
what i'm going to need to do is carefully go through the audio and document things that i remember differently, at the specific points that i remember them differently - and use that as a reason to have the original files released.
it's not one or two things. it's a lot of things. and, as crazy as it sounds, it almost seems as though the scene was reconstructed - although i should point out that anybody with access to the files also has access to an essentially unlimited sample library of both the justice and all of the representatives speaking.
as of right now, i cannot know if the justice is aware of the release or not.
monday, probably.
it's not one or two things. it's a lot of things. and, as crazy as it sounds, it almost seems as though the scene was reconstructed - although i should point out that anybody with access to the files also has access to an essentially unlimited sample library of both the justice and all of the representatives speaking.
as of right now, i cannot know if the justice is aware of the release or not.
monday, probably.
ok, so i've got the audio, and i'm still analyzing it, but i'm convinced it's been edited. people have imperfect memories, but there's certain things you remember clearly.
i initially only asked for the audio of the release/hearing, but they seemed insistent on giving me the audio of the day the charges were dropped, as well, so i bit. see, and the weird thing is that they seem to have edited the second day, as well, and in a way that is much more obvious - they seem to have cut an entire segment out of the audio, and i suspect that they even recorded over a part of it, then tried to hide the cut with an out of place gavel hit. while my memory is not aligning well with the audio for the first day, i can't pull out any obvious editing; the second day is a much less professional job, that could be potentially incriminating.
the thing is that i don't even know why they'd do that, but it suggests a deeper level of complicity, nonetheless.
they released it in the form of a pdf document, and you're supposed to listen to little segments of it, along with the court notes - but i was able to pull a continuous recording out of the temp files. this continuous recording is in wma. but, the documents indicate that the audio was stored in dcr format, which is apparently shockwave audio. i wouldn't imagine that the audio saves directly to dcr...
so, it seems like i'm going to have to go back and make a formal motion for the actual audio. i'm just not sure if i should call the rcmp or not, first.
i initially only asked for the audio of the release/hearing, but they seemed insistent on giving me the audio of the day the charges were dropped, as well, so i bit. see, and the weird thing is that they seem to have edited the second day, as well, and in a way that is much more obvious - they seem to have cut an entire segment out of the audio, and i suspect that they even recorded over a part of it, then tried to hide the cut with an out of place gavel hit. while my memory is not aligning well with the audio for the first day, i can't pull out any obvious editing; the second day is a much less professional job, that could be potentially incriminating.
the thing is that i don't even know why they'd do that, but it suggests a deeper level of complicity, nonetheless.
they released it in the form of a pdf document, and you're supposed to listen to little segments of it, along with the court notes - but i was able to pull a continuous recording out of the temp files. this continuous recording is in wma. but, the documents indicate that the audio was stored in dcr format, which is apparently shockwave audio. i wouldn't imagine that the audio saves directly to dcr...
so, it seems like i'm going to have to go back and make a formal motion for the actual audio. i'm just not sure if i should call the rcmp or not, first.
the tory media is agitating for a scrap.
but, the reality is that quebeckers made an informed choice in electing this government, which is now carrying out a democratic mandate to reduce migration; this is the popular will. for trudeau to come out swinging would be horribly tone deaf, and no doubt just be shooting himself in the foot.
there are legal questions of jurisdiction under the constitution, as well as rights to be upheld. these arguments are best had in a court of law - and let us all agree, at least, that the rule of law should be upheld.
but, immigration is a public policy question and subject to the sovereign will, and that must be respected.
we might be better off trying to understand the root causes - policy failures- that produced the backlash in order to adjust, rather than aimlessly flail against a clear mandate.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-announces-reduced-immigration-targets-fuelling-tensions-with/
but, the reality is that quebeckers made an informed choice in electing this government, which is now carrying out a democratic mandate to reduce migration; this is the popular will. for trudeau to come out swinging would be horribly tone deaf, and no doubt just be shooting himself in the foot.
there are legal questions of jurisdiction under the constitution, as well as rights to be upheld. these arguments are best had in a court of law - and let us all agree, at least, that the rule of law should be upheld.
but, immigration is a public policy question and subject to the sovereign will, and that must be respected.
we might be better off trying to understand the root causes - policy failures- that produced the backlash in order to adjust, rather than aimlessly flail against a clear mandate.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-announces-reduced-immigration-targets-fuelling-tensions-with/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)