so, i just wanted to do a quick update on the show listings.

i'm ready to go, now. let's try to get most of inri015 done before the sun comes up.

see, this is why buttigieg hasn't won yet, and why biden isn't screwed, when he should be - forget about whether the results are representative of the country, are they even representative of iowa? and, i don't think that anybody really thinks that they are.

the candidate that really got nailed was warren, because she lost across the board. you really have to give her consolation delegates. she lost. everywhere. convincingly. even klobuchar won a handful of counties.

if the disconnect between the polling and the outcome is as wide for biden in new hampshire as it was in iowa, there will need to be an understanding that his numbers aren't real. i keep arguing that there's no evidence he's faltering, but that relies on the assumption that the data isn't bullshit. but, if the numbers in the primary align with the polling predictions halfways decently, it's hard to argue that iowa really matters much - not due to the demographics, but due to the process.

would biden have done better in a primary?

well, i don't want to frame the question around biden's performance, as though that's the primary concern. but, there appears to have been a disconnect between the polling and the outcome.

the question i want to ask, and that is important, is if the outcome of the caucus was really reflective of the democratic will of iowans or not, and the fact that there were no polls that had buttigieg at 27% suggests that it perhaps wasn't.

you could maybe erect a reverse-bradley effect around buttigieg's sexuality to explain the polling discrepancy, but that could only really get you half the answer. at some point, you have to acknowledge that the difficulties associated with caucusing would have disproportionately affected older voters, and voters that worked in the evening, which would have been biden's core demographics..

the caucus is supposed to be transparent and aid the democratic process. you could probably increase turnout that much more by scheduling it on a weekend, right? but, when you look at how low turnout was, it really does open up a lot of questions.

as mentioned, the primary question should be whether the views of iowans were accurately recorded in the results or not. were they? 

what did i do today?

i napped until around 13:00, got up, ate some fruit, did dishes, took a shower, read the news.

i believe my case is scheduled for june 23rd. i'm waiting on a letter. the coordinator has gotten exceedingly bitchy with me as a consequence of proving her wrong repeatedly, which isn't even my fault - i'm just trying to get the fucking case scheduled, and she keeps being wrong, and i keep having to correct her in order to get the case scheduled, which is enraging her. like, this is supposed to be a customer service job. if i was her boss, i'd probably fire her for the way she's been talking to me, and i can only imagine she's just as bad with everybody else. it's not worth it to me, but she's really awful, really. i'm at least pretty sure that i succeeded in the task at hand, despite her best efforts.

i left a message with the motion coordinator, which is somebody else, and will follow up tomorrow.

so, today was really largely wasted on purpose.

but, now i want to get some work done.

alright.

let's get some coffee brewing, and let's get the pc up, and let's get to work on inri015.

i'm going to do a quick february lookahead first, as i promised i would.

see, these are valid points and everything, but i still think the constitution puts too much power into the congress, here, and even this is overstepping the congressional bounds, if the end goal is actual removal. and, to me, that's the more fundamental question.

the congress should be investigating this kind of thing, of course. but, the maximum extent of it's actual power should be to trigger an election...

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/a-tragedy-noam-chomsky-slams-democrats-for-narrow-focus-of-trumps-impeachment-trial/

removing the democratically elected president through a bureaucratic process is kind of authoritarian, don't you think?

wouldn't you expect an anarchist to bristle against that, even as she's not the biggest fan of the presidential system in the first place?

...if she takes her politics seriously, that is - if she's not just looking to pragmatically align with a partisan outcome.

like, you don't have to tell me i'm not in the progressives club.

i will volunteer that i'm not, and state clearly that i don't want to be. i'm extremely critical of progressives; i tend to consider them to be interchangeable with conservatives. rather, i'm a couple of rungs over to the left, in the anarcho-communist club.

i volunteer this. every other day, in fact.

you don't have to tell me, i'll tell you.

i'm not going to fault anybody for voting for removal.

but, i don't think it was their place to do so; i think they overstepped their bounds.

and, i would not have voted on the measure, myself.

remember: i'm not a democrat. i'm not a "progressive". i'm a left-anarchist.

while i'm usually ok with governments interfering in markets (because i don't believe in markets anyways), i'm usually very much not ok with heavy-handed governance of much of any sort.

so, i don't want to say i'm in line with small government, because i'm not - i'm in favour of very large government, larger than just about anybody that you'll meet.

but, i am in favour of government that has a hands-off approach towards the actual process of governing.

and, i think this whole fiasco is as much of an abuse of power as the thing that set it off was.

my basic position is not about whether what he did was bad enough to warrant removal from office. i actually think that's a secondary question.

rather, my basic position is that the decision should be up to voters, and not up to congress; congress' power should be restricted to the ability to trigger an early election, only.

and, that is the status quo position in the canadian system.

so, is what he did bad enough to warrant removal? i would argue that that is a decision that voters should make. 

now, as a voter, i would actually vote for removal. but, as a member of congress, i would abstain.

i hope that that's clear.

and, it won't broadcast the wiki link, so here's the post:

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/02/if-there-any-confusion-about-where-i.html

if there's any confusion about where i stand on the impeachment trial, i can clarify the point: i would have abstained from voting, under the argument that the congress ought not have the legal authority to remove the executive power without an intervening electoral process.

i would then immediately attempt to introduce recall legislation into the body i sat within.

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

but, i'm from a different country, with a different set of governing traditions.

i just simply don't think it's democratic for the parliament to remove the executive like this, and that would be the status quo position in the british-canadian parliamentary tradition - i'm simply reflecting the viewpoints of my own country's legal tradition.

i'm sorry if you find that upsetting, but i don't really give a fuck.

i'm awake, but i'm floating and planning to waste the day. i could nap a little more.

i've decided that i want to finish what i was doing before i try to fix that laptop, so i'm going to boot back into the pc after 19:00 and work it out from there. but, i'm going to want to be saving electricity during the day, so i'm also going to be shutting down between 7:00-19:00, starting tomorrow. let's hope i get a productive weekend in.

i don't see any reason why i'd leave the house again until next weekend at the earliest.

i just want to get these projects done without having to worry about doing troubleshooting. it shouldn't be too much longer once i sit down to do it.

that means i'll be running through inri015, inri021, inri022 & inri023 first and then building seeds from december, 2013 and then finishing up january, 2014 and running through the releases from that month. it will only be after i'm done all of that that i will boot back into the laptop and try and figure out what i'm doing with it. i guess i'll leave the chromebook on for streaming.

i think i have everything worked out with the court stuff, and that the last thing to do is check up on the motions. but, i'll be making some calls throughout the day to check up on that.

and, that means we're over the hump and back to work soon, hopefully.

i would like to call on parliamentarians of all genders the world over today to bare a shoulder in solidarity.

this seems silly, but these attitudes need to be attacked head-on so they don't fester or spiral out of control.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/i-am-not-a-slapper-labour-mp-tracy-brabin-defends-her-commons-attire

i guess you shouldn't expect too much in terms of discourse from a collection of geriatrics that should be living in homes and eating gerber's out of flying spoons.

i don't know which one is worse. really. trump. pelosi. mcconnell. sanders. bloomberg. biden. they sound like a bunch of little kids bickering with each other.

reminds me of this old floyd tune:

google owns these servers. i understand that. i can find somewhere else to host a blog if they don't want me here. and, they have to obey the relevant laws, too, whether they agree with them or not.

but, i am within the bounds of adult discourse to expect transparency and honesty in communication regarding any concerns about the content of my posts.

if you don't like my posts, tell me. i don't really care what you think. but, i can close down and set up elsewhere.

i'm obviously not interested in being censored or moderated or screened in any way. i want anything of the sort that exists to be turned off. i want full control over this space.

however.

at the very least, i would expect that google put forward a transparent process rather than merely delete or withhold posts. it could be as simple as an email stating "your post was rejected". that would allow me to understand what's happening and make an informed, adult choice about where to move my platform to.

doing this via stealth is childish and beneath the dignity of whomever is doing it.

ok.

no.

i'm going to spend today catching up on sleep.

i'll be back at this tonight after 19:00.

i would also suggest to ms. warren that if she can't win a single county then she should go back to washington and stay there.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

this was actually, honestly the last communication i had with erin, aka esa, aka shelley teagan. i think i made my point clear enough.

i have no idea what or how she's doing, now.

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2013/10/i-had-to-firmly-end-things-after-she.html

ok, that post came through after, but the delay suggests somebody pushed a button.

i'm growing increasingly uncomfortable about the sanctity of the data, here. there appears to be some kind of law enforcement agency or other type of unwanted filtering process sitting between me and the posting output, and if it doesn't cease and desist immediately then i'm going to have to strongly consider shifting platforms again. 

i have no interest in being moderated and simply won't be.

i flipped the cmos battery this morning, so it's been draining all day and should be clear when i turn it back on.

but, all i can do is sort through what's here and see what evidence they left and hope it wasn't too disruptive. as though everything else happening isn't overwhelmingly disruptive :\.

they're out of control. i go out to mail a motion to toronto on a police brutality case, and the cops break into my computer when i'm gone. how much more absurd...

everything else aside, having somebody strip the password off of your cmos is invasive. i feel like i just got raped, basically. the password was there because i don't give random people that are in my apartment without my knowledge permission to snoop through my files, if that needed to be stated. and, i strongly doubt they got a warrant for that, either.

but, if i understood what the point was, i could maybe take some steps to prove the point to get them to fuck off.

there's obviously some kind of misunderstanding, if they think they can find something on my hard drives. there's nothing to find. really.

their remote surveillance was bogging down and crashing my machine, which is too slow to run the software they were pushing down and still be functional as a gateway device.

it would really be useful if i could figure out why they're coming in here like this.

so, i just had my first censored post here. let's try this one at a time.

test

it would really be useful if i could figure out why they're coming in here like this.

their remote surveillance was bogging down and crashing my machine, which is too slow to run the software they were pushing down and still be functional as a gateway device.

there's obviously some kind of misunderstanding, if they think they can find something on my hard drives. there's nothing to find. really.

but, if i understood what the point was, i could maybe take some steps to prove the point to get them to fuck off.

everything else aside, having somebody strip the password off of your cmos is invasive. i feel like i just got raped, basically. the password was there because i don't give random people that are in my apartment without my knowledge permission to snoop through my files, if that needed to be stated. and, i strongly doubt they got a warrant for that, either.

they're out of control. i go out to mail a motion to toronto on a police brutality case, and the cops break into my computer when i'm gone. how much more absurd...

but, all i can do is sort through what's here and see what evidence they left and hope it wasn't too disruptive. as though everything else happening isn't overwhelmingly disruptive :\.

i flipped the cmos battery this morning, so it's been draining all day and should be clear when i turn it back on.

so, i got a final cancellation on the tenant case in, took a shower and woke up to dry air. let's hope he's not being an asshole about this....there's nothing stopping me from filing again....

things were relatively good. really. the problem is that the air is so ridiculously dry, but it's not clear to me what the cause of this is. it's not clearly from smoke like it has been in the past. i dunno.

i took a very long shower this afternoon, because my hair needed it.

and, then i napped, and woke up to iowa results, which were about what i deduced.

i think i'm still sleepy. but, if i can get a final confirmation on the court date in the morning, i can get some tickets and move on. let's try to keep napping until about midnight before i get up and try to put things back together again....

knowing that somebody physically removed the cmos password makes me wonder two things:

1) what are they looking for?

2) did they fuck with anything?

so, i'm kind of...not looking forward to turning the pc back on, under the expectation that something may not be quite how i left it.

it's just underscoring the importance of ensuring that the police are held accountable, so i can get the constitutional case in and be compensated for their abuses.

in raw numbers, sanders got roughly half the support he did in 2016.

i had three likely outcomes:

1) biden gets out the base.

2) sanders works up the fringes

3) buttigieg emerges as consensus

1 & 3 were mutually exclusive. 3 turned out to be the right one, and 2 happened too.

this is buttigieg's chance, and he'd better make the most of it because it is indeed obvious that he doesn't have the appeal to southern blacks that barack obama did.

but, we may be seeing a break in the "obama coalition", a sort of chicago connection, between educated, northern whites and uneducated, southern blacks. sanders doesn't pull from either side of that, remember. but, that was always a shaky union.

if buttigieg can salvage that coalition, he will win. if he can't, if it factions and picks separate candidates, then sanders can come up the middle.

biden will have a hard time winning if he's lost northern, educated whites to some combination of buttigieg and warren, even if he sweeps the south.

and, it's time for klobuchar to go home to washington.

when i come home after a lengthy period and there is specifically no password on my bios anymore, that indicates that somebody physically entered the unit and removed the cmos in order to strip it.

if there's any ambiguity that i'm dealing with anybody besides the cops...

also, there's somebody smoking up there again.

yuck.

so, that was a lengthy detour of several days.

- early thursday morning - finished updating the existing liner notes

- thursday afternoon: wrote, served and faxed a motion to toronto.

- thursday evening: received a factum and read through it

- thursday night into friday morning: wrote a reply factum & served it

- friday morning: passed out with a migraine. i got paid on friday, too.

- friday evening: finally got the list of hearing dates from the coordinator after trying for a week

- friday night into saturday morning: ate. cleaned. napped. tried to catch up on blogging. etc.

- saturday morning into the afternoon: grocery shopping

- saturday afternoon: slept

- saturday night into sunday morning: put groceries away into tupperware

- sunday afternoon into monday morning: lots of sleep
- early monday morning: cleaning. did taxes.
- monday morning: checked up on court stuff. canceled landlord tenant board hearing, motion needs affidavit. can mail reply factum with second affidavit. almost finished hearing canvassing, but no response from city.
- monday afternoon into evening: got affidavit, printed & mailed reply factum, finished grocery shopping.
- monday night into tuesday morning: ate. napped. finished cleaning. napped again.
- tuesday morning: finished hearing request form, hearing set to jun 23rd.

i skipped a poppy concert on saturday and intend to skip a tauk show tonight. debussy, mid-month, remains likely.

but, i think i'm ready to get started on inri015, finally. i'm just weighing whether i want to do it on the pc or do it on the laptop. and i'm leaning towards the pc.

i have a new usb keyboard but i kind of want to get these things done first before i toy with it.

and, the password in my bios got stripped, indicating there was somebody down here when i was gone.

sanders obviously has a better chance in new hampshire.

but new hampshire is also the kind of state where biden's support could move to buttigieg fairly readily - more so than south carolina, for example.

so, we might have both narratives happening at the same time - and it might turn out to be a two-way race.

i don't think they're trying to rig it.

i think they're trying to stop iowa from becoming a giant queer party, and basically waiting until everybody leaves, first.

"is that a stick of corn in your pocket?"

no. honestly. it's a conservative state. and, there's actually a reasonable concern about safety, it's not just old people being uptight.

but, this is why pete buttigieg is a scary entity to a leftist campaigner - it makes his opponents look like out of touch dinosaurs. and, i really wish that sanders would have embraced the cultural liberalism rather than brush up against it.

but, i mean....i'm used to being disenfranchised. this is pretty normal for me.

"fuck it, i'm voting for trump."

"he's racist!"

"they're all racist. fuck, i'm racist. i'm racist against gays and jews and girls."

but, is that the field? bernie v buttigieg?

i said over and over that if biden can't hold on then buttigieg will take his place.

if biden got convincingly leapfrogged, buttigieg is the guy now, and you need to adjust. but, it's not clear if that holds up.

i don't think black voters are going to like any of these candidates.

"hey, leroy. you can vote for the jew or the gay or the woman. or the chinese guy."

*shrug*.

i should wait for results before i speculate further, given that the difference between winning and losing is going to be marginal.

what do i do now?

bernie is the better candidate, broadly, but he's 100 years old and thinks like it sometimes, and he seems to have some real problems with the queers, of which i happen to be one.

buttigieg is an obvious foil, being that he's gay, but he's basically a republican, and a fucking christian, too.

go greens....

the app doesn't work, guys. i'm getting this error code:

error 69: proposed winner is gay.

i don't know for sure. i'm just deducing.

but, this is a conflict point that's been building in the democratic party for quite a while now. and, we're going to have to have this fight, because for every religious or ethnic voter that won't vote for the gays, there's a secular atheist that won't support the religious or ethnic agendas.

we're seeing the same conflicts play out in canada. it's schismatic, but it has to run it's course.

i would call on the party to release the results and let the people decide.

it seems like the party doesn't like the results out of iowa.

my best guess is that buttigieg won. and they don't like it. and it's clear why.

they should be presenting their forecasts in terms of dialectics.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/what-happened-to-winter-so-far-in-canada-and-a-look-ahead-to-the-february-pattern

the kitchen was really pretty filthy. so i'm glad i've got a handle on it. that was kind of a major project.

now, i need to make some calls.

last year, i sent a letter to my mpp. nothing.

this year, i sent something to the finance minister & the prime minister. we'll see if i at least get a response.

as the credit is intended to offset inflation, it should be distributed in such a way that shields it from tax collectors. otherwise, it's the most vulnerable that are going to get squeezed by it, and i think what we have in front of us is ignorance rather than malice - they were too clueless to work it out, and the ndp were too weak to force them to.

if you could sit the fuckers down and force them to listen for roughly five minutes, i'm actually relatively confident that they'd agree they fucked up and promise to fix it. but that's not exactly easy to do.

so, how do you get awareness out?

they didn't fix it....

that means that i'm going to end up with a $224 refund from the carbon tax, but it will be used to pay down my $100,000 student loan debt (that is, vanish into thin air) instead of given to me to spend in the economy. it makes no sense. but that's what happens when you let entitled pricks write the budget.

it's not like it's my money in the sense that i paid into it, and i don't feel like i'm dealing with any real inflation in anything i actually buy, although you'd have to ask somebody with a car about that more directly. i don't feel ripped off. i'm not angry.

i'm just baffled, still - even if it's not coming out of my pocket, it's really just a dumb policy to take $200 away from the poorest people in society and give it to some faceless bankers to pay down a debt that shouldn't exist in the first place. so, it's actually more like that this is the least effective student loan forgiveness program of all time, and i'm scratching my head at how they could be so stupid.

and, the answer is that they purged the party of all of it's experience, so they don't have anybody around that knows how to do this kind of thing, anymore, and have written a lot of bad legislation due to not having the proper experience to avoid these mistakes.

they should have set up the climate refund in a special program, like they set up the gst rebate in. that way, you don't have people going through the absurdities that i'm going through with this.

*shrug*. that's $400 in interest to the banks from the government, now. i can't complain about that, exactly. but, it could have helped to create jobs in the local economy instead.....and i could have used it to have fun, rather than have it get wasted sitting in the bank.

i'm just about the poorest person you'll meet, and i've yet to see a dime from this supposed wealth redistribution scheme.

i have no real claim to the cash.

if they want to reduce my $100,000 student loan by $224, less than a month's interest, that strikes me as pointless. but, i wasn't planning around the money.

if inflation starts going up, i'm going to change my argument, but i don't even expect that to happen.

it was $154 last year and will be $225 this year.

as i stated before, this is petty and stupid. everybody would be better off if they sent me the money to spend; nobody benefits from sending it to the bank.

but, it's not worth wasting my time on.

i'm never going to pay that student loan debt down.

so, if they keep raising the tax, and they add a few hundred dollars to it every year, i'm going to end up with a nice little sum in a few years.

it's not worth my time now, but it will be when they have a $5000 check for me from withheld carbon tax payouts, and i can sue them for it.

let me just do the damned taxes...

...and my position, which i will restate here, is that i'm carbon-tax-neutral.

if it works as a money generating scheme for green infrastructure projects, and the government needs the accounting trick to sleep at night, then whatever. i'm not going to oppose taxing pollution.

but, i'm beyond skeptical of the actual efficacy of pigovian taxation schemes. the actual mechanism won't work - we need to print oodles of money and spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.

my tentative support is really as a first step in the absence of a better plan.

but, they couldn't even do it right....

yes, folks.

this government is so incompetent that it couldn't even figure out how to implement the carbon tax properly.

to be clear....

my student loan debt is pushing $100,000. the minimum payment, which i haven't paid in something like 12 or 13 years, would be over $1200, most of it interest.

my carbon tax credit was something like $300.

my gross income is less than $15,000/yr, or around $1260/month. my gross income is less than my minimum payment.

so, could i have used the $300? sure.

is it going to help me pay down my debt by withholding it? no....

i wonder if they still have it, though. i don't think they can actually apply it towards the debt, i think they can only hold it. with interest, i presume.

last year when i did my taxes, i was baffled to realize i couldn't access my carbon credits because i had a student loan debt. i'm able to access virtually every other tax credit. so, i decided that was an oversight.

let's see if they've fixed it or not.

have prices come up? i don't use a lot of fuel. i walk or bike everywhere, and the way the economy works in canada is that we all import most of our food. one of the few local crops i buy is soy milk, and it may have gone up a little, but it's hard to attribute that to the carbon tax by eyeballing it.

i sent out letters and stuff...

but, i decided at the time that it wasn't worth really thinking much about because it came out in the wash, anyways. i could use the check, sure. but, it wasn't hurting me to have the accounting come out the way it did.

as mentioned then and again right now, this is a mistake on their behalf. you can go through dozens of tax credits, and they all exempt people in debt. there wasn't a change in policy. they just fucked up...

let's hope they've fixed it; i'll find out in an hour, if i can stay awake that long.

so, i didn't want to sleep all day, but i did, and it's time to get up. i am awake. finally. i tried a few times and fell back over again...

i dunno. the headache last week, maybe? i didn't sleep a lot last week over all, though, either. maybe that big meal i had yesterday just pulled the general lack of sleep together and said "now". *shrug*.

i need to get some fruit, first, then do some taxes, then get back to cleaning.

then, i will need to make a number of calls in the morning before i get out for some errands. it'll at least be warmer out, maybe warm enough that i can avoid the face mask. 

i will need to call the divisional court first to figure out if they accepted the factum or not. when i talked to them on friday, they basically made it clear that there was no way they'd accept it. i'm not mailing a reply factum if they won't accept the factum. i'll also need to figure out what's going on with the motion.

i should also get a more detailed time listing for the oral presentation to send to the cops. i kind of dropped that on them.

maybe it's better that i'm wide awake...

something broke inside of the liberal party in the path between dion and trudeau.

they're ruining the country, apparently on purpose.

the kinds of resolutions that canada would be forced to support if placed on the security council could permanently destroy our international reputation.

we can't take these outside stands like the scandinavian countries do. we'll have to get our hands dirty.

look at the country's current venezuela policy, for an example. it's more than an embarrassment, it's unrecognizable.

what minimal attachment i have to the historical values of this country would evaporate as we become usa-lite, and i'd find myself wanting to move to europe to get out.

i don't want to be on the security council :(.

that was a good 14 hours or so of sleep.

i guess i needed it.

i have a big day today...

re: quarantine and the coronavirus

i am not opposed to quarantine, in principle, and think anybody arguing that it's racist to quarantine people are making specious arguments. if a white person comes back from china, is it racist to quarantine them, too? 

but, if you're going to quarantine somebody in 2020, you'd better make sure you're backed up by the science, and, with this virus, the science just doesn't support that. they're getting hit in china, but china is still a very poor place, overall, and it's broadly treatable, in the context of first world science.

i would support a quarantine if the science warranted it; i think that would be an acceptable rights restriction. but, the science to make that call isn't there, and appeals to avoid taking chances are not warranted.

somebody should turn those stupid groundhogs into a delicious stew.

it's easy to forget that it wasn't that long ago that people were so ignorant that they actually believed this stuff, or that there are still places in the world today where people remain this ignorant.

but, if it were up to me, we'd stop doing this. nothing good can come from it.

so, i stopped to set up a match account:

https://www.match.com/profile/V1uLHTYIk3Lxwae4rLEVtw2

why?

because i've been getting the idea for a while that some people might find something like that useful.

i will probably never check that profile, ever. it's just there for general reference. so, interpret it as you may.

so, i'm halfway done cleaning. i've got my fruit put away, which is literally enough to last me the rest of february. it's something about the winter, i guess, but i tend to end up with a very full fridge in february.

and, i got my day's bowl of fruit, before i sat down, and i had to sit down, it happens. i'm just about to get back up and finish cleaning....

the last post tried the link as http instead of https and that's not it. it's the link to wikipedia that's being filtered. 

again: all i can do is tell the people that are doing this that they're busted, that it's unwelcome, that i never signed up for it and that i''d like it to stop.

i have not yet found any actual evidence of missing posts, but if i ever do then i'll need to switch platforms again. i have zero tolerance for that. i won't use the platform, and i'll tell other people to get off of it, too. as a platform provider, you have an obligation to ensure reliability in transmission, and you will see your market collapse if you fuck with that. trust me.....that's your responsibility here, and if you don't take it seriously, it's going to hurt you.

i will remind you that i will likely be endorsing the greens this election, rather than anybody running in the democratic election. it would appear that the most likely candidate is howie hawkins, and i would feel the need to support him at this point, instead of bernie sanders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howie_Hawkins

he may also win the socialist party ticket, creating a united green/socialist front, with decidedly libertarian tendencies. i'd like to hope that's a stable coalition, actually. if i was to join one of these clubs, i'd want to join the green anarchist club.

there is no party that perfectly represents my views, and i'm not going to change my views to align with the party, that's backwards thinking - voters pick parties, parties don't create voters. so, i'm sure i'll have lots of disagreements with them, and i'm sure they'll find things here they don't like. that's fine, we can have those debates. maybe i'll convince them, in the end. but, the point is that i ultimately don't care about party orthodoxy, or making friends, or fitting in or joining clubs - i am an independent, isolated voice that cares about identifying which party apparatus i believe is most likely to advance my self-interests, and that would appear to be the greens at this point, and not the democrats.

i will remind you that i will likely be endorsing the greens this election, rather than anybody running in the democratic election. it would appear that the most likely candidate is howie hawkins, and i would feel the need to support him at this point, instead of bernie sanders:

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

he may also win the socialist party ticket, creating a united green/socialist front, with decidedly libertarian tendencies. i'd like to hope that's a stable coalition, actually. if i was to join one of these clubs, i'd want to join the green anarchist club.

there is no party that perfectly represents my views, and i'm not going to change my views to align with the party, that's backwards thinking - voters pick parties, parties don't create voters. so, i'm sure i'll have lots of disagreements with them, and i'm sure they'll find things here they don't like. that's fine, we can have those debates. maybe i'll convince them, in the end. but, the point is that i ultimately don't care about party orthodoxy, or making friends, or fitting in or joining clubs - i am an independent, isolated voice that cares about identifying which party apparatus i believe is most likely to advance my self-interests, and that would appear to be the greens at this point, and not the democrats.

let's try without the wiki post.

===========

i will remind you that i will likely be endorsing the greens this election, rather than anybody running in the democratic election. it would appear that the most likely candidate is howie hawkins, and i would feel the need to support him at this point, instead of bernie sanders:

(there was a wiki link to howard hawkins, here)

he may also win the socialist party ticket, creating a united green/socialist front, with decidedly libertarian tendencies. i'd like to hope that's a stable coalition, actually. if i was to join one of these clubs, i'd want to join the green anarchist club.

there is no party that perfectly represents my views, and i'm not going to change my views to align with the party, that's backwards thinking - voters pick parties, parties don't create voters. so, i'm sure i'll have lots of disagreements with them, and i'm sure they'll find things here they don't like. that's fine, we can have those debates. maybe i'll convince them, in the end. but, the point is that i ultimately don't care about party orthodoxy, or making friends, or fitting in or joining clubs - i am an independent, isolated voice that cares about identifying which party apparatus i believe is most likely to advance my self-interests, and that would appear to be the greens at this point, and not the democrats.

this link was not archived:

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/02/i-will-remind-you-that-i-will-likely-be.html

there's going to be wide variability. it's going to be all over the place. it's part of the reason these things are so hard to predict.

but, my own feeling about how the results of your average precinct will look are going to be something like this on the first ballot:

biden: 25%

sanders: 23%

buttigieg: 20%

---------------------------

warren: 14%

klobuchar: 14%

rest: 4%

to be clear - i think warren is going to miss a lot of cut-off points. i think this is a three-way race, not a two-way race. and, i think klobuchar will almost catch her, or even beat her.

....in iowa. specifically.

where do those numbers go? 

i know people want to think that warren supporters will go to sanders, but they're missing the point about why they're not supporting sanders in the first place. the data i've seen actually suggests that a lot of warren voters are going to go to buttigieg first, and then sanders and biden in roughly equally numbers.

klobuchar's numbers will mostly split between buttigieg and biden.

and, let's give sanders a slight bias for the remaining 4, to be fair.

so, the second round looks like this:

biden: 25 + 3 (warren) + 6 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 35
buttigieg: 20 + 8 (warren) + 6 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 35
sanders: 23 + 3 (warren) + 2 (klobuchar) + 2 (rest) = 30

that's what i think your average district looks like on the second ballot, if warren fails to meet the threshold, which i think she will more often than not.

but, what if i'm wrong and she surprises me? then you'd end up with something like this:

biden: 25 + 4 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 31
sanders: 23 + 2 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 26
buttigieg: 20 + 4 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 25
warren: 15 + 4 (klobuchar) + 1 (rest) = 20

i think that's more in line with the broad perception, right now. and, you can see the general benefit that sanders gains from having warren in the race, even if this wasn't the cabal's intent - democrats that won't vote for him will vote for her.

but, i think there's a lot of reasons to think that warren is going to do very badly tomorrow and more or less need to end her candidacy next week. we'll find out...

where'd i go?

i guess i shut down around 7:00 yesterday morning, and i took a few grocery trips in the morning. i got my usb keyboard, and some replacements for some plates i broke (they may be too flimsy. we'll see.) as well. i stopped in the afternoon, got something to eat and passed out in the afternoon. i was up around 11:00 and finished eating...

i went past my eating schedule because i made too much pasta last week and then had eggs this week instead. i have to eat the pasta up. that means i'm going to be eating a lot of fruit for the next few weeks.

i didn't finish cleaning and need to get to that before i start reassembling the laptop, piece by piece.

is it really the wireless? is it just the system board? well, there's a lot of coincidences, aren't there? let's do some testing and find out.

and, as i've stated repeatedly:

i completely reject the concept of property rights.

that makes it very hard for me to organize on the right, and is the reason why i call myself an anarcho-communist, rather than an anarcho-capitalist. but, it's the communist that's the more important component of this than the anarchist.

if your'e a kind of typical centre-left democrat, and you find me appalling, it's probably the communist part of the thing that's pissing you off more than the libertarian part. after all, anarcho-communism is a sort of a redundancy.

but, i don't vote or align on social issues, and i think that's a big part of the disconnect, because so many people do - they're looking to join a club, to meet friends, to be a part of a movement. i'm just sorting through pamphlets and trying to figure out which one i agree with, and then going home to work on my art. i don't want to join your club, or be your friend or join your movement. so, the social issues actually don't even matter much to me.

so, i might support targeted bombing in iran to eliminate the religious leadership and make way for a populist uprising of secularist forces, and i might vote for it in a referendum, which is something no right-libertarian would support, fwiw, but it would be about 163rd on the list of issues in a general voting decision, one way or the other, and i wouldn't think twice about voting for somebody that opposed it, or somebody that supported it, if their positions properly aligned with mine on things i care more about.

what i vote on is economic issues, and, whatever you think of my views on social issues (i'd argue they're extreme left, and that's why you're averse to them.), my economics views are decidedly communist, decidedly anti-market, decidedly anti-property, and outright hostile to the libertarian right.

they're the people i'm least likely to get along with on the issues i care most about.

so, as i've said repeatedly - i'm not a bourgeois liberal. i'm definitely not a conservative, of any type. and, i'm not a libertarian, either.

i am actually the anarcho-communist that i keep telling you i am.

i will remind you that i will likely be endorsing the greens this election, rather than anybody running in the democratic election. it would appear that the most likely candidate is howie hawkins, and i would feel the need to support him at this point, instead of bernie sanders:

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

he may also win the socialist party ticket, creating a united green/socialist front, with decidedly libertarian tendencies. i'd like to hope that's a stable coalition, actually. if i was to join one of these clubs, i'd want to join the green anarchist club.

there is no party that perfectly represents my views, and i'm not going to change my views to align with the party, that's backwards thinking - voters pick parties, parties don't create voters. so, i'm sure i'll have lots of disagreements with them, and i'm sure they'll find things here they don't like. that's fine, we can have those debates. maybe i'll convince them, in the end. but, the point is that i ultimately don't care about party orthodoxy, or making friends, or fitting in or joining clubs - i am an independent, isolated voice that cares about identifying which party apparatus i believe is most likely to advance my self-interests, and that would appear to be the greens at this point, and not the democrats.

i just want to get a point across, though.

are my arguments "anti-feminist"? i would reject that on it's face. rather, i'd argue it's sexist to tell women they're emotional, rather than logical, and that it's patronizing to uphold the perceptions of women as inherent over the proposed intellectual deductions of men.

framing the issue in those terms in the first place is a whole lot of nonsense, and my concept of feminism means abolishing that debate altogether, not opening up some kind of chivalrous space for the weaker sex.

but, my feminism is very old school. i'm not even second wave. i'm fucking first wave. i'm wollstonecroft, i'm marie curie - i'm of the opinion that women really are, actually, equal, they've just been held uneducated, and kept ignorant. 

so, i actually tend to get sort of angry when i hear these inverted faux-feminist arguments about how women can't figure out complicated logic, or can't handle themselves in the court room. that's a lot of fucking bullshit. 

but, regardless, let's take a step back and look at the situation, here.

is my case evidence for the validity of these inverted faux-feminist arguments about the weaker sex being unable to compete, or the softer sex being unable to tell a lie?

or is it actually more along the lines of the kind of arguments that mra activists warn us about?

i was charged with stalking somebody because i aggressively applied for an apartment, and the argument is that the property owner "perceived" she was harassed. it's completely ridiculous in every possible way.

i was a feminist of a certain sort before this, and the situation isn't going to change my views about gender equality. but, i think everybody should take a little pause from this, because it is, actually, exactly what the mras warned us about happening when you remove critical thinking from the judicial system.

thankfully, the justice (who was female) saw through this with the help of duty counsel (also female). the justice actually laughed at the crown prosecutor's argument. i have a recording of it. it was that specious. and, the second crown prosecutor (female) saw through it and dropped the case, as well. it's hard to know how much of what the counsel for the oiprd is doing is just them doing their job. but, i expect to win the case, at least.

but, it didn't stop me from getting arrested, or having charges filed. and, i'd consequently be careful in leveling those accusations, because they may very well backfire - this is exactly the kind of case where clear thinking is required to overpower the hysteria.

what i've been testing for is to determine if it's a bot or a person.

i think it's a person.

great.

fucking cops. ugh.

i'm actually thinking something else at this point.

what do wikipedia and the guardian have to do with each other? they don't share keywords, and filtering them specifically would be entirely arbitrary.

i think i'm rather dealing with a sneaky censor, that got caught in the act and is pretending it had to do with the website when it actually had to do with the content.

just fuck off. nobody wants your censorship. 

go swallow a fucking tailpipe, you piece of shit.

https

en

wikipedia

org/wiki/Canadian_order_of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki/Canadian_order_of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian_order_of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian

_order_of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian

_

order_of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian

_

orde

r_

of_precedence

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian

_

orde

r_

of

_precedence

again, it's the link that's being filtered.

https

en

wikipedia

org

wiki

Canadian

_

orde

r_

of

_

precedence

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending process (as that would give them undue influence).

but, in case of emergency?

it's actually the supreme court justice that takes over.

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

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending process (as that would give them undue influence).

but, in case of emergency?

it's actually the supreme court justice that takes over.

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending process (as that would give them undue influence).

but, in case of emergency?

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending process (as that would give them undue influence).

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim leader and launch a leadership process, 

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again, and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he were to disappear or evaporate, 

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or
disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again,
and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce,

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or
disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again,
and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca,

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or
disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again,

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or
disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again,
and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if
he were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim
leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be
that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending
process (as that would give them undue influence).

but, in case of emergency?

it's actually the supreme court justice that takes over.

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

in practice, if the prime minister were to spontaneously combust, or
disappear into the woods with a group of yeti and never be seen again,
and he'd probably think he was meeting chewbacca, the dunce, but if he
were to disappear or evaporate, the party would choose an interim
leader and launch a leadership process, and the convention would be
that that interim leader would not run for leader in the pending
process (as that would give them undue influence).

but, in case of emergency?

it's actually the supreme court justice that takes over.

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

this post did not broadcast:

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/02/in-practice-if-prime-minister-were-to.html

this is of course outrageous. i should not be subject to the views of these catholics in my personal choices; i should have the right to tell them that what they think doesn't matter.

if you don't want assisted suicide, don't sign up for it.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/01/31/catholic-bishops-urge-trudeau-to-scrap-changes-to-assisted-dying-legislation.html

yeah, when i first flipped through it, that's kind of what i thought too.

the initial headlines were something like "supreme court abolishes judicial review", and the oiprd certainly seems to think that vavilov is giving them greater deference, but my initial reaction was that the lack of a clear standard, and the shifting of correctness to reasonableness (essentially, a change in language), may actually open up the court's "interference".

to be clear: i think we need less of these review panels and more formal legal processes. the purpose was to minimize the weight on the court system, and i get it, but these bodies functionally operate without proper oversight (the last thing you want is an "independent review body", because that means there's no accountability!), and many of them should be abolished in favour of bringing back the centrality of the formal court system.

but, if people think that the assumption of reasonableness means less certiorari, i think they're going to be disappointed. 

https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/69981

for the sake of transparency..

...and apologies for the poor formatting.

....but, the incompetence of the respondents aside, and the delays they've created as a consequence of it, i do expect to win this case, once i can finally get it in front of a judge, even if it takes another five years to do it.

as i've stated over and over again, the longer they drag this out for, the worse they'll appear, in the end.

this is not a difficult case, and it shouldn't have had to come to this. but, i will appeal it if i have to, because there's no question at all that i'm legally right.

======

Reply Factum of The Applicant

1. The applicant filed a request for judicial review and general certiorari on nov 18, 2019.
2. On dec 20, the respondent (the iprd) offered to conduct a new review into the question of the
legality of the arrest, on the condition that the other issues be dropped.
3 On Dec 21, the applicant rejected the premise that the issue could be deconstructed in a
reductionist manner, and repeated her insistence on a total review that looked at the situation
holistically. The counter-argument is that determining whether police harassment occurred
requires looking at the entire situation, and analyzing a pattern of behaviour, not breaking
things down into a series of narrow claims that are restrictively true or false. She repeated her
request for a general certiorari.
4. On Jan 30th, the iprd filed a 57 page factum that essentially included the review that had been
rejected on Dec 21st. This factum is not just full of new arguments, but contains a completely
new review.
5. Noting that the request for general certiorari was premised on the claimed incompetence of
the oiprd, as evidenced by the endless delays and non-reports, and also that the factum
acknowledges that the question of the legality of the arrest should have been addressed in the
first place, thereby confirming the validity of those claims, the applicant does not feel it would
be productive to reject the respondent's factum as breaking the rules of judicial review,
although it rather clearly does.
3
6. Rather, the applicant will note that, had she received this report in march then she certainly
would have appealed it, and had she received this review in september then she certainly would
have appealed it to this court, as well.
7. So, while the applicant is willing to accept the review in the factum, where it should not be,
in order to carry the process forwards without further delay, she would request the right to file a
reply to it, essentially in the form of the factum that would have been filed with the appeal to
the review, as it would have existed.
8. The applicant makes no changes to her initial series of requests.
Part II: Facts
9. I take some issue with the characterization of events presented in paragraph 16 of the
respondent's factum:
The rentor of that unit did not wish to rent the unit to the applicant. The
applicant was not satisfied with the decision, and thereafter sent the rentor a
series of emails.
10. This suggests that e-mail correspondence only began after some kind of decision was made,
and was done out of some kind of malice, or outside of the context of the application process.
Rather, the email record (as it exists in multiple filed documents) makes it clear that all
communication between the applicant and the property owner (always under the pseudonym of
ryan myon, the only name the applicant had seen attached to the property owner up to the point
of her arrest) existed over email and in the context of the application process, and that when
communication continued past the point of rejection, it was done in the context of continuing to
apply for housing, under claims of discrimination on prohibited grounds by the property owner,
which would fall under the protected rights of the applicant, and certainly not be harassment
4
under any objective definition of the term, regardless of how the property owner may have
"felt" about the situation. The communication was strictly for rental purposes, and never
frivolous, retaliatory or in any way of a personal nature. All evidence suggests that the
applicant believed she was communicating with a man named ryan, and not a female named
caroline. The applicant has never met this property owner, spoken to her on the phone, been to
her dwelling (or know where it is), or even seen a picture of her on the internet; the applicant
knows absolutely nothing about the property owner, and has demonstrated absolutely no
interest in learning anything about her. She has, however, filed a $100,000 human rights
lawsuit against her for discrimination in housing, a case which is currently in the process of
being deferred until the outcome of this one is clear. So, it should not be thought that a series of
frivolous emails were sent to the property owner by the applicant after her application was
rejected; that would be counter-factual, and misleading, and not an accurate representation of
the facts in the case. Rather, the facts are that the applicant does not dispute that she continued
to apply for housing over email, the only method available to her, even after she had been told
she would not be considered, as she claims is her right under the relevant human rights
legislation, as she intuited being discriminated against under prohibited grounds. Further, any
demand to stop applying under threat of reprisal would itself be prohibited behaviour under the
human rights code; while the applicant had every right to continue to apply for housing in the
face of perceived bias by the property owner, the property owner was in fact breaking the law
in threatening her for standing up for her rights, in continuing to apply.
11. The fact that this was clearly explained to the officer by the applicant has been omitted
from the factum and should not be.
12. Paragraph 17 of the factum states:
5
Finally, the applicant alleged that she had been treated in a discriminatory manner due
to her being openly transgendered.
13. That is not quite correct. Rather, I suggested a suspicion of bias as a consequence of
observed behaviour and mannerisms, as well as the clearly transphobic language used in the
reports, and requested an investigation; I explicitly stopped short of explicit allegations of this
nature, as I did not have any clear evidence upon which to base them. This is a matter of
checking the record.
14. Paragraph 22 of the factum states:
Sergeant Campbell did not investigate the applicant's allegation that her arrest was
unlawful. Rather, his investigation focused on the allegations of misconduct contained
in her OIPRD complaint, which was filed and received prior to her arrest.
15. I would label this a false statement. While I would argue that the investigation into the
legality of the arrest was insufficient and ultimately incorrect in law, which is the basis of the
request for review, there was actually an honest, if allegedly wrong, attempt to justify the arrest
by writing off my concerns about it's warrantless nature via citing R v. Storrey, i claim
completely incorrectly due to the hybrid nature of the charge.
16. The motives and situation underlying the officer's decision to place his foot in the door are
disputed, although his decision to place his foot in the door is not. I have never accepted the
idea that the officer was shielding himself from a door being slammed. It is irresponsible to
present this as a fact in the case; this is disputed and that is clear from the record. However, I
would suggest that few reasonable people would interpret the officer's narrative as much more
than a contrived excuse.
6
17. Likewise, it is worth repeating that the officer does not actually deny refusing to provide his
badge number, but rather blames the applicant for asking him to repeat it when she didn't hear
it, as though he's only obligated to mumble it once, and has then checked it off the list. I seek
only to state that some of the so-called facts presented in the respondent's factum are disputed,
in this reply factum; i do not seek to repeat the argument in my original factum.
Part III - Issues and the Law
18. Vavilov is a case at the federal level, so it needs to take the varying provincial approaches
towards certiorari, as either a legislated rule, or an unwritten constitutional principle, into
consideration, as it rules in full generality. While the police services act may not provide for a
review mechanism, it is nonetheless the case that, in ontario, certiorari is explicitly legislated
into the judicial review procedure act, which gives the divisional court clear reviewing
jurisdiction, by explicit legislative intent. So, the idea that there is no legislative intent around
the power of a general certiorari would be belied by the existence of the judicial review
procedure act, which is exactly that. If the provincial legislature did not wish for this court to
have the power of certiorari over the oiprd, it would repeal or amend the jrpa, accordingly, or
place an appropriate caveat n the police services act.
19. Further, the rule of law is a broad concept in Canadian jurisprudence that certainly includes
ensuring that the police behave within the frameworks of legislated, constitutional and judicial
law when conducting arrests (see Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45 @ para 2, f required), so a
case questioning the legality of a warrantless arrest would certainly fall under the rubric of a
"rule of law" issue, unless we are now redefining the term, and we don't give the supreme court
of canada power over the english language - they would be outside of their own jurisdiction,
with that. i think there is a strong argument that reviewing the legality of arrests is the most
7
fundamental, basic purpose of judicial review, that this kind of review is really an extension of
habeas corpus, and that we'd be taking a dangerous step towards authoritarianism if we were to
abolish it. As stated in my addendum, I must assume that the supreme court had issues such as
this in mind when it spoke of the rule of law as an exception; i suppose this may, in the end, be
the case that tests this.
20. It is also the case that an illegal arrest and detention, if established, would open up a
number of constitutional rights issues, and both of the named respondents have, in fact, been
given notice of the intent to file a constitutional rights challenge by the applicant upon the
conclusion of this review process. The claim that this case has no constitutional rights
ramifications is clearly wrong - there is an imminent challenge pending, and they've been told
as much.
21. Vavilov also clarifies that a decision that does not uphold legislated rules or jurisprudential
norms would be considered unreasonable, thereby making the standard of review a distinction
without a meaningful difference, in context. Reasonableness, as a default standard of review, is
not an excuse for the panel to be shielded from criticism for making errors of law, or a carte
blanche for the reviewing body to do whatever it wants.
22. It is suggested via citing vincent and cozzi that the standard of review ought to be uniformly
applied to the body being reviewed, rather than determined by the nature of the case. It may be
very true that the proper standard of review in those cases was reasonableness, but stare decisis
would not suggest that, therefore, every case with a police review should have the same
standard of review! Rather, the correctness standard would need to apply in cases of overriding
error, and the exceptions listed in vavilov may very well apply to a large number of future cases
where the complaints director is the reviewing authority, even if it may not apply to others. So
8
this is what a logician would call a category error. Further, vavilov is explicit that errors in law
can never be upheld as reasonable. So, this is a disingenuous application of the new precedent
that should be ignored as flawed.
23. The applicant considers it somewhat comical that the iprd could explicitly argue that all
aspects of a case should be explored in a reasonableness review in the context of a scenario
where somebody was charged with harassment, arrested and held overnight for the crime of
repeatedly applying for housing, which would be just about the most unreasonable thing you
could imagine happening.
24. It is not up to a complainant to define the concept of harassment as something she
"perceives", but rather something that must be interpreted via an analysis of objective fact.
Citing perception is never a valid epistemology; we must always use the scientific method. So,
to claim that the applicant should have known that the property owner would "perceive" further
communication as harassing is not a legally meaningful argument in a criminal context
(although it may work in a workplace harassment context), and is exactly the error that the
officer made in making the arrest without seeking a warrant, and which i am seeking to be
labelled as illegal, not an argument in favour of reasonable grounds - the point is that the
property owner was quite obviously wrong in her perceptions, that the facts did not uphold her
perceptions as being correct, and the officer's job was actually to tell her she was wrong and
there was nothing he could do about it, not illegally arrest me to teach me a lesson. See R v,
Burns, 2008 ONCA 6 @ paras [2]-[4] for the need to establish an objective concept of
intentionally instilling fear, an idea that was not only not demonstrated but actually rejected by
both the officer and the crown, and now by the oiprd, and is obviously absurd in the context of
communication for the purposes of applying for housing. Again: this is exactly the point being
contested. But, I will refer you to my original factum to discuss this point further. See R v.
9
Sillip, 1997 ABCA 346 @ para 18 for the five-point criterion in determining what criminal
harassment is in Canada, and which a competent officer should know offhand (or at least know
enough to ask a judge for a warrant, regarding). This exact point is actually made in the cited
case, R v. Kosikar; see paras 27-29 of this document.
25. As stated previously, the power of a general certiorari is granted to this court by the ontario
legislature via the judicial review procedure act. So, to suggest that the unreasonable delays
don't result in a loss of jurisdiction is somewhat of a red herring, as the divisional court has a
statutory power of review, regardless of delays or not; i am citing the unreasonable delay as a
reason for the divisional court to exercise it's own existing jurisdiction due to procedural
unfairness, not an argument for the oiprd to lose a projected jurisdiction that it doesn't actually
have. the divisional court is the higher body, and the oiprd is the lower body, so the jurisdiction
flows upwards, and it's an issue of exercising power, and reasons for it, not of gaining it or
losing it. the new precedent may stress judicial restraint, but it does not change the balance of
power or prevent me from requesting that the court carry out it's statutory authority of
certiorari over any lower body, even if it does caution the court to think carefully about the
justifications for it before it does it. i will leave it to the court to make this decision, in it's
wisdom, and subject to my right to appeal it, if i question that wisdom, because no entity in this
universe has infinite wisdom. i am making a point about where power exists here, even if it
need not always be exercised; vavilov did not declare the jrpa ultra vires, and it is in fact still in
force. Certiorari still exists!
26. Logically, the interpretation act would have to be secondary to s. 495 (2) because 495(2) is
an explicit exception to the general rule in the interpretation act, and exceptions always
overpower rules, when they are stated explicitly. The interpretation act may allow for the police
to treat hybrid offences as indictable ones in certain contexts until the crown elects to make a
10
choice, but it does not negate the explicit instructions of the legislature regarding what officers
may not do regarding hybrid offences; otherwise, 495(2) would be superfluous, and should be
eliminated altogether, which is clearly not the case. The interpretation act itself addressees this
in 34 (2); 495(2) is clearly an example of "except to the extant that the enactment otherwise
provides", in action. Further, Storrey is explicit and newer than Huff (which is also pre-charter
and before the cited 1985 criminal code revisions) in stating how he would have ruled if the
charge was a hybrid one. I also cited a recent case of interest in my addendum (Fleming v.
Ontario). In the face of vavilov, it's important to note what the clear intent of the legislature
was here, which was to stop officers from making frivolous arrests on cases that stood no
chance in court. I spent 20 hours in jail for no discernible reason, and partly because the system
was overcrowded. One cannot cite 495(1) to negate 495(2); 495(2) must be used to limit the
arrest authority of 495(1). The argument presented by the iprd to justify the frivolous nature of
this warrantless and groundless arrest has changed, but it is still wrong, and the limitations in
495(2) are still paramount. I should not have been arrested, clearly, and would like the record to
state as much.
27. In paragraph 46, the iprd states as follows:
Additionally, the offence of criminal harassment requires that an accused person
knows - or is reckless as to whether - his or her repeated communications with
another person causes the other person to be harassed. Harassment is proven if, as a
consequence of the communication, the other person is harassed in the sense of
being tormented, troubled, worried, continually or chronically plagued, bedeviled and
badgered. The officer need not believe that an accused might harm the other person;
the officer need only be satisfied that the communication causes the other person to
feel harassed, and that the feeling of harassment is reasonable in the circumstances.
28. This is a deeply dishonest presentation of the cited case, R. v. Kosikar. I will cite directly
from that case:
18 As Proulx J.A. said in R. c. Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 181 (Que. C.A.),
s. 264(1) sets out the constituent elements of the offence which must be proven whereas
s. 264(2) describes the four types of prohibited conduct to which subsection (1)
refers
11
.
19 I also agree with Proulx J.A.'s adoption, from R. v. Sillipp (1997), 11 C.R. (5th)
71 (Alta. C.A.), of the following description of the five essential elements of the offence:
1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in
s. 264(2)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of the Criminal Code.
2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed;
3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew
that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to
whether the complainant was harassed;
4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her
safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and
5) It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the
circumstances, reasonable.
29. This is more or less exactly what I wrote in my initial request for review, albeit it in less
flamboyant language, and have repeated in my factum, and more or less the precise negation of
what the iprd tries to present in their own factum in para 46. Given that they included the case
in their book of authorities, this is hard to understand. Why not concede the point? I kind of
don't get it. Further, I don't even think this is a point that requires much further analysis, as it
appears to be so deeply established in the case law.
30. The highlighted section of R. v. Kosikar, para 28, addresses the question of whether a single
event can be enough to justify harassment charges, but this has nothing to do with the case at
hand, and is essentially another red herring. It may be true that a single act is enough to justify
charges, but that single act still has to have the five characteristics, and there were no grounds
for an objective interpretation of any of them in the case at hand.
31. I will include the previously cited para [2]-[4] of R v. Burns to close down, while stressing
the point that, as a transwoman, i am actually a frequent target of street harassment and that all
12
communication with ryan myon (who later identified herself as caroline chevalier) had to do
with renting an apartment:
 Criminal Harassment
[2] To establish harassment under s. 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, the Crown had to
establish that the appellant engaged in "threatening conduct". We accept the
definition of threatening conduct given in R. v . George (2002), 2002 YKCA 2 (CanLII),
162 C.C.C. (3d) 337 (Y.T. C.A.) at para. 39 that, in order to meet the objectives of s.
264, the threatening conduct must amount to a "tool of intimidation which is designed
to instil a sense of fear in the recipient". The impugned conduct is to be viewed
objectively, with due consideration for the circumstances in which they took place, and
with regard to the effects those acts had on the recipient.
[3] In brief, the conduct in question is as follows. The appellant and the complainant
knew one another but had virtually no contact in the three years prior to the
incident. The incident took place in broad daylight in downtown North Bay while
the complainant was walking down Main Street with her five-year old daughter, after
having left a bank. The appellant was dressed in full police uniform and also on foot
on Main Street. He wolf-whistled at the complainant, said "nice butt" or "nice ass"
and then, after the complainant sped up to get away from him, called out "are those
pants painted on".
[4] While the appellant's conduct was clearly inappropriate and unwanted, we do not
see the incident as amounting to threatening conduct within the meaning of those
words in s. 264(2)(d). Although the complainant justifiably felt upset and scared by
the appellant's conduct, viewed objectively, we do not see it as rising to the level of a
"tool of intimidation designed to instill a sense of fear".
Part IV
Restated, verbatim, from the initial factum:
I would like the court to order the following:
1) that the arrest was illegal.
2) that the officers responsible for the arrest should be appropriately disciplined for it
13
3) that an independent investigation into the circumstances leading to the arrest should be
launched by a body that is at an arms-length distance from the windsor police, such as,
perhaps, the rcmp,
4) that at the end of this process, the applicant be awarded running costs for transportation
and printing, as best as she can document it at that time, as the expenses associated with this
appeal are an undue hardship on her disability income. these costs should run between $200-
1000.
The applicant will be self-representing herself for the first time and is hesitant to suggest time
frames, but does not think that this is a confusing or challenging case, as the error in law by
the windsor police is blatantly and abundantly clear and truly a consequence of incompetence
underlying the initial report. Discussions surrounding the ambiguities of the case may carry
on, but the central concern of the case should take mere minutes to deal with.
Addition: I suppose I should request one hour.
14
Schedule A
1. R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 SCR 421
2. Canada. v. Vavilov, [2019] SCC 65
3. Fleming v. Ontario, [2019 ] SCC 45
4. Vincent v. Hamilton Police Service, 2012 ONSC 6177
5. Cozzi v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2016 ONSC 627
6. R v, Burns, 2008 ONCA 6
7. R v. Sillip, 1997 ABCA 346
8. R. v. Kosikar, 1999 124 oac 289 (ca)
9. R. v. Huff, 1979 ABCA 234
Schedule B
1. Ontario Human Rights Code, s.8
2. Police Services Act, s. 71
3. Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 2
4. Criminal Code of Canada s. 495
5. Criminal Code of Canada s. 264
6. Interpretation Act, s. 34
Book of Authorities
Fleming v. Ontario, [2019 ] SCC 45, para.2

[2] Police officers are tasked with fulfilling many important duties in Canadian society. These
include preserving the peace, preventing crime, and protecting life and property. The execution
of these duties sometimes necessitates interference with the liberty of individuals. However,
a free and democratic society cannot tolerate interference with the rights of law-abiding
people as a measure of first resort. There is a line that cannot be crossed. The rule of law draws
that line. It demands that, when intruding on an individual's freedom, the police can only act
in accordance with the law.
R v, Burns, 2008 ONCA 6. paras [2]-[4]
Criminal Harassment
[2] To establish harassment under s. 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, the Crown had to
establish that the appellant engaged in "threatening conduct". We accept the definition of
threatening conduct given in R. v . George (2002), 2002 YKCA 2 (CanLII), 162 C.C.C. (3d)
337 (Y.T. C.A.) at para. 39 that, in order to meet the objectives of s. 264, the threatening
conduct must amount to a "tool of intimidation which is designed to instil a sense of fear in the
recipient". The impugned conduct is to be viewed objectively, with due consideration for the
circumstances in which they took place, and with regard to the effects those acts had on the
recipient.
[3] In brief, the conduct in question is as follows. The appellant and the complainant knew one
another but had virtually no contact in the three years prior to the incident. The
15
incident took place in broad daylight in downtown North Bay while the complainant was
walking down Main Street with her five-year old daughter, after having left a bank. The
appellant was dressed in full police uniform and also on foot on Main Street. He wolfwhistled
at the complainant, said "nice butt" or "nice ass" and then, after the complainant sped
up to get away from him, called out "are those pants painted on".
[4] While the appellant's conduct was clearly inappropriate and unwanted, we do not see the
incident as amounting to threatening conduct within the meaning of those words in s.
264(2)(d). Although the complainant justifiably felt upset and scared by the appellant's
conduct, viewed objectively, we do not see it as rising to the level of a "tool of intimidation
designed to instill a sense of fear".
R v. Sillip, 1997 ABCA 346, paras [16]-[18]
[16] In the case at bar, Murray, J. told the jury that the term "harass" embraced something more
than a complainant being "vexed, disquieted or annoyed". He spoke of appropriate synonyms
and mentioned some being "tormented, troubled, worried, plagued, bedeviled and badgered".
The charge, taken as a whole, emphasizes to the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
a complainant has been troubled, worried or badgered, will not suffice; proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that a complainant has been vexed, disquieted or annoyed will not suffice,
The trial judge told me jury that "something substantially more than that" was required.
[17] In fact, s. 264 articulates the additional requirement. It is that, in all of the circumstances,
the conduct of the accused caused the complainant reasonably to fear for her safety or the
safety of anyone known to her.
[18] In the result, a proper charge to a jury in a criminal harassment case must include reference
to the following ingredients of the crime, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt:
1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264
(2) (a), (b), (c), or (d) of the Criminal Code.
2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed.
3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the
complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the
complainant was harassed;
4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety
or the safety of anyone known to her; and
5) It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances,
reasonable.
R. v. Kosikar, 1999 124 oac 289 (ca), paras [18]-[19]
18 As Proulx J.A. said in R. c. Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 181 (Que. C.A.), s. 264(1)
sets out the constituent elements of the offence which must be proven whereas s. 264(2)
describes the four types of prohibited conduct to which subsection (1) refers.
16
19 I also agree with Proulx J.A.'s adoption, from R. v. Sillipp (1997), 11 C.R. (5th) 71 (Alta.
C.A.), of the following description of the five essential elements of the offence:
1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s.
264(2)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of the Criminal Code.
2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed;
3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the
complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the
complainant was harassed;
4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety
or the safety of anyone known to her; and
5) It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances,
reasonable.
Ontario Human Rights Code, s.8
Reprisals
8 Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and
participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person
under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8.
Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 2
Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled "Notice of
Application for Judicial Review", the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any
relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following: 1. Proceedings
by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to
the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power. R.S.O.
1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (1).
Error of law
(2) The power of the court to set aside a decision for error of law on the face of the record on an
application for an order in the nature of certiorari is extended so as to apply on an application
for judicial review in relation to any decision made in the exercise of any statutory power of
decision to the extent it is not limited or precluded by the Act conferring such power of
decision. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1,
s. 2 (2).
Lack of evidence
17
(3) Where the findings of fact of a tribunal made in the exercise of a statutory power of
decision are required by any statute or law to be based exclusively on evidence admissible
before it and on facts of which it may take notice and there is no such evidence and there are no
such facts to support findings of fact made by the tribunal in making a decision in the exercise
of such power, the court may set aside the decision on an application for judicial review.
R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (3).
Power to set aside
(4) Where the applicant on an application for judicial review is entitled to a judgment declaring
that a decision made in the exercise of a statutory power of decision is unauthorized or
otherwise invalid, the court may, in the place of such declaration, set aside the decision. R.S.O.
1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (4).
Power to refuse relief
(5) Where, in any of the proceedings enumerated in subsection (1), the court had before the
17th day of April, 1972 a discretion to refuse to grant relief on any grounds, the court has a like
discretion on like grounds to refuse to grant any relief on an application for judicial review.
R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (5). Where subs. (5) does not apply
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to the discretion of the court before the 17th day of April,
1972 to refuse to grant relief in any of the proceedings enumerated in subsection (1) on the
ground that the relief should have been sought in other proceedings enumerated in subsection
(1). R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (6).
Interpretation Act, s. 34
Offences
Indictable and summary conviction offences
34 (1) Where an enactment creates an offence,
(a) the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence if the enactment provides that the offender
may be prosecuted for the offence by indictment; (b) the offence is deemed to be one for which
the offender is punishable on summary conviction if there is nothing in the context to indicate
that the offence is an indictable offence; and
(c) if the offence is one for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which
the offender is punishable on summary conviction, no person shall be considered to have been
convicted of an indictable offence by reason only of having been convicted of the offence on
summary conviction.
Criminal Code to apply
(2) All the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to indictable offences apply to indictable
offences created by an enactment, and all the provisions of that Code relating to summary
conviction offences apply to all other offences created by an enactment, except to the extent
that the enactment otherwise provides.
18
Documents similarly construed
(3) In a commission, proclamation, warrant or other document relating to criminal law or
procedure in criminal matters,
(a) a reference to an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment shall be
construed as a reference to an indictable offence; and
(b) a reference to any other offence shall be construed as a reference to an offence for
which the offender is punishable on summary conviction.
19