i need to move.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
so, what actually happened? what's the story, here?
around 20:00 on monday evening, i sat down to make some spaghetti. as i was about to slice into my tomato, some cops banged on my door.
as mentioned, my primary concern was avoiding resisting arrest, so i was very compliant. whether i've committed a crime or not, resisting arrest is always one, so you don't want to do that.
i was arrested for "criminal harassment", and brought to the station in cuffs in a windowless van. i called a lawyer when i got there, for the purposes of informing somebody i was in jail, but i did not expect to be in custody for more than a few minutes. i am, after all, being charged with repeatedly applying for an ad.
i was instead placed in a holding cell for over twenty hours. i spent most of that time screaming for access to a judge, who i knew damned well would snicker at the situation, yelling the situation into the cameras (for the record) and counting to....i made it 10,500 before my throat forced me to stop. i suspect i could have counted to 20,000 if i had metallic vocal chords.
i decided i would charge $1000 emotional damages for every second left to rot in a cell for the crime of replying to an ad. so, when i get around to it, the suit against the city will be for $11 000 000. that should be enough to find somewhere to live that is smoke-free, right?
i did not sleep. i urinated once, close to 16:00 the next day. i ate one of the three meals they gave me.
i was brought out to see several people during the day, including duty counsel and a representative for legal aid. as mentioned, duty counsel was a conservative older lady that i trust was acting in what she perceived were my best interests, but she seemed quite concerned that i was going to become irrational in the court, and feared i would harm my own well being. i fully recognize that she spends most of her days helping people with low levels of education get out of terrible situations, and there's obviously a lot of altruism in that, but it sets up a mentality of fiduciary duty; she wanted me to go sit in the corner and be quiet and let her deal with it. which i did actually do, because, on some level, she was absolutely right. i just worry that i wasn't present for a set of important conversations. it's one thing to tell me to be quiet in the room and let me listen, and another to tell me to sit in the other room.
it seemed like the outcome of the hearing had already been decided when they finally brought me into the court room at the very end of the day. the justice was clearly baffled by both the situation and the charges, stating into the record that it was unacceptable to arrest somebody with no prior record and leave them in a cell for twenty hours. i was not permitted to speak and was in fact asked to sit down repeatedly, but i think i might have helped her understand, if i was permitted to do so. duty counsel was a nervous wreck, clearly frightened i was going to undo her careful work...
but, i stayed quietly. i didn't sing o canada through air guitar. i didn't call the judge a fascist. i didn't curse the accused, or swear at the prosecutor or do anything of the things that....that she probably actually deals with on a daily basis. it was perhaps incorrect to see me the same way as most of the people she represents, but i can't fault her for it. that's what she knows. that's what she sees.
the judge only seemed willing to reject the crown's argument up to the point of triviality. i suspect that she would have dismissed the charges if she could, but, given that she couldn't, she had to leave the conditions in place. so long as the charges exist, i must be ordered not to reply to the ad. and, while she did not feel that she could remove the recognizance altogether, she reduced it from $2000 to $100 - a functional dismissal.
she repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to justify the conditions.
when the crown read the charges into the record, she talked about how the owner of the apartment felt unable to show the apartment to other "legitimate" applicants because she feared i might be using false identities to reply to the ad (which is simply schizophrenic nonsense, imagined whole cloth, and without the slightest evidentiary basis), and told me i was "not welcome here". i reacted by scoffing at the absurdity of the presented scenario, and the oppression inherent in the language - and the justice seemed to agree with me.
so, i can't go near guns. like i'd go near guns, right. that's a standard condition, and i had no argument, because i don't care. and, i can't reply to the ad until the charges are dropped or defeated. if i do either of those two things, i will be arrested a second time, and have to pay $100.
i need to reappear on october 10th, if the charges are not dropped before then.
to me, continuing to reply to this ad is a rights issue. i hardly expect to be approved. but, i have the right to be annoying - independently of whatever schizophrenic fantasies anybody wants to have, or pretend to have. however, i have been charged with a crime and agreed to not engage in this behaviour, until such a point comes that a judge upholds my right to be annoying. you could articulate this different ways: i am providing for due process, or allowing for judicial review. but, it's one thing to tell a cop that he's wrong and close the door and another thing to get charged by that cop and go to court and need to have a judge state that the cop is wrong. i will expect compensation, in the long run.
i was released a little after 17:00.
around 20:00 on monday evening, i sat down to make some spaghetti. as i was about to slice into my tomato, some cops banged on my door.
as mentioned, my primary concern was avoiding resisting arrest, so i was very compliant. whether i've committed a crime or not, resisting arrest is always one, so you don't want to do that.
i was arrested for "criminal harassment", and brought to the station in cuffs in a windowless van. i called a lawyer when i got there, for the purposes of informing somebody i was in jail, but i did not expect to be in custody for more than a few minutes. i am, after all, being charged with repeatedly applying for an ad.
i was instead placed in a holding cell for over twenty hours. i spent most of that time screaming for access to a judge, who i knew damned well would snicker at the situation, yelling the situation into the cameras (for the record) and counting to....i made it 10,500 before my throat forced me to stop. i suspect i could have counted to 20,000 if i had metallic vocal chords.
i decided i would charge $1000 emotional damages for every second left to rot in a cell for the crime of replying to an ad. so, when i get around to it, the suit against the city will be for $11 000 000. that should be enough to find somewhere to live that is smoke-free, right?
i did not sleep. i urinated once, close to 16:00 the next day. i ate one of the three meals they gave me.
i was brought out to see several people during the day, including duty counsel and a representative for legal aid. as mentioned, duty counsel was a conservative older lady that i trust was acting in what she perceived were my best interests, but she seemed quite concerned that i was going to become irrational in the court, and feared i would harm my own well being. i fully recognize that she spends most of her days helping people with low levels of education get out of terrible situations, and there's obviously a lot of altruism in that, but it sets up a mentality of fiduciary duty; she wanted me to go sit in the corner and be quiet and let her deal with it. which i did actually do, because, on some level, she was absolutely right. i just worry that i wasn't present for a set of important conversations. it's one thing to tell me to be quiet in the room and let me listen, and another to tell me to sit in the other room.
it seemed like the outcome of the hearing had already been decided when they finally brought me into the court room at the very end of the day. the justice was clearly baffled by both the situation and the charges, stating into the record that it was unacceptable to arrest somebody with no prior record and leave them in a cell for twenty hours. i was not permitted to speak and was in fact asked to sit down repeatedly, but i think i might have helped her understand, if i was permitted to do so. duty counsel was a nervous wreck, clearly frightened i was going to undo her careful work...
but, i stayed quietly. i didn't sing o canada through air guitar. i didn't call the judge a fascist. i didn't curse the accused, or swear at the prosecutor or do anything of the things that....that she probably actually deals with on a daily basis. it was perhaps incorrect to see me the same way as most of the people she represents, but i can't fault her for it. that's what she knows. that's what she sees.
the judge only seemed willing to reject the crown's argument up to the point of triviality. i suspect that she would have dismissed the charges if she could, but, given that she couldn't, she had to leave the conditions in place. so long as the charges exist, i must be ordered not to reply to the ad. and, while she did not feel that she could remove the recognizance altogether, she reduced it from $2000 to $100 - a functional dismissal.
she repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to justify the conditions.
when the crown read the charges into the record, she talked about how the owner of the apartment felt unable to show the apartment to other "legitimate" applicants because she feared i might be using false identities to reply to the ad (which is simply schizophrenic nonsense, imagined whole cloth, and without the slightest evidentiary basis), and told me i was "not welcome here". i reacted by scoffing at the absurdity of the presented scenario, and the oppression inherent in the language - and the justice seemed to agree with me.
so, i can't go near guns. like i'd go near guns, right. that's a standard condition, and i had no argument, because i don't care. and, i can't reply to the ad until the charges are dropped or defeated. if i do either of those two things, i will be arrested a second time, and have to pay $100.
i need to reappear on october 10th, if the charges are not dropped before then.
to me, continuing to reply to this ad is a rights issue. i hardly expect to be approved. but, i have the right to be annoying - independently of whatever schizophrenic fantasies anybody wants to have, or pretend to have. however, i have been charged with a crime and agreed to not engage in this behaviour, until such a point comes that a judge upholds my right to be annoying. you could articulate this different ways: i am providing for due process, or allowing for judicial review. but, it's one thing to tell a cop that he's wrong and close the door and another thing to get charged by that cop and go to court and need to have a judge state that the cop is wrong. i will expect compensation, in the long run.
i was released a little after 17:00.
yeah. ok. careful language in the code.
"release from custody by officer in charge" - that was the warrant/non-warrant binary, which comes with the $500 max.
but, i was ordered released by the judge. so, i don't have a max, because the cops didn't actually agree to releasing me at all.
the cops didn't want to release me at all.
for the crime of replying to an ad.
lol. fucking idiots.
but, listen: the justice thought this was retarded, entered into the record that she was upset at the amount of time i spent in custody and ordered me released on the most lenient conditions that she could. i expect any judge to agree entirely with the justice: this is vexatious. i fully acknowledge that these details are something i'm just learning about now, but i understand the legality of the situation fairly well and it's a flatly stupid case. in the end, the more ridiculous the crown is about it, the harder the judge is going to come down on it.
i snickered when the charges were read, and the duty counsel cringed, but the justice smiled - she agreed.
this is stupid.
"release from custody by officer in charge" - that was the warrant/non-warrant binary, which comes with the $500 max.
but, i was ordered released by the judge. so, i don't have a max, because the cops didn't actually agree to releasing me at all.
the cops didn't want to release me at all.
for the crime of replying to an ad.
lol. fucking idiots.
but, listen: the justice thought this was retarded, entered into the record that she was upset at the amount of time i spent in custody and ordered me released on the most lenient conditions that she could. i expect any judge to agree entirely with the justice: this is vexatious. i fully acknowledge that these details are something i'm just learning about now, but i understand the legality of the situation fairly well and it's a flatly stupid case. in the end, the more ridiculous the crown is about it, the harder the judge is going to come down on it.
i snickered when the charges were read, and the duty counsel cringed, but the justice smiled - she agreed.
this is stupid.
ok.
on third thought, i'm in a different section, a "judicial interim release". see, lawyers aren't logicians. so, they don't recognize a binary between "arrest with warrant" and "arrest without a warrant". i would think that these are the only two possibilities, but apparently a third one exists.
there are no maximum recognizance conditions set on a judicial interim release, and that is apparently true whether there was a warrant involved, or not.
but, see, this is the kind of thing that i didn't have explained to me. what is the difference between this situation and a regular release on recognizance? in both situations, the accused is being released before a trial, right? so, why is there a separate section for this?
on third thought, i'm in a different section, a "judicial interim release". see, lawyers aren't logicians. so, they don't recognize a binary between "arrest with warrant" and "arrest without a warrant". i would think that these are the only two possibilities, but apparently a third one exists.
there are no maximum recognizance conditions set on a judicial interim release, and that is apparently true whether there was a warrant involved, or not.
but, see, this is the kind of thing that i didn't have explained to me. what is the difference between this situation and a regular release on recognizance? in both situations, the accused is being released before a trial, right? so, why is there a separate section for this?
and, see, here's the thing.
maybe i could have stopped all this bullshit before it started if i knew this stuff off of the top of my head. but, what fun is that? see, then the cop gets to keep his job, and i don't get to sue for damages for harassment and negligence.
there will be a proper investigation, in the end. and, the fuckers will be held accountable for their errors.
maybe i could have stopped all this bullshit before it started if i knew this stuff off of the top of my head. but, what fun is that? see, then the cop gets to keep his job, and i don't get to sue for damages for harassment and negligence.
there will be a proper investigation, in the end. and, the fuckers will be held accountable for their errors.
the thing going through my head at the time was "i don't want to resist arrest, i'll figure this out afterwards". so, i was compliant for that reason. because you hear about that all of the time - cops show up to arrest you for swearing in church, and then instead of the cop getting fired, you end up in jail for assaulting a police officer.
you know, i'm wondering something else.
i didn't ask for a warrant. maybe i should have.
these are the rules for releasing somebody arrested via warrant.
"(b) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge without sureties in the amount not exceeding five hundred dollars that the officer in charge directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security"
they tried to charge me $2000, but the justice said that was crazy because there was no evidence (take note.) and cut it down to $100. so, in the end, what happened was lawful.
but, did the crown make an unlawful request, or was i arrested without a warrant?
because, if i was charged with a hybrid offence without a warrant, i should not have been arrested at all - i should have been asked to appear in court.
the more incompetence i can uncover, the bigger the payout.
i didn't ask for a warrant. maybe i should have.
these are the rules for releasing somebody arrested via warrant.
"(b) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge without sureties in the amount not exceeding five hundred dollars that the officer in charge directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security"
they tried to charge me $2000, but the justice said that was crazy because there was no evidence (take note.) and cut it down to $100. so, in the end, what happened was lawful.
but, did the crown make an unlawful request, or was i arrested without a warrant?
because, if i was charged with a hybrid offence without a warrant, i should not have been arrested at all - i should have been asked to appear in court.
the more incompetence i can uncover, the bigger the payout.
the duty counsel got me out of jail without any meaningful conditions. that was what she said she wanted to do, and that's what she did, and on a certain level she's right - that's the most immediate concern.
but, if it was done at the expense of me understanding the accusations against me, or putting me at a disadvantage in relation to the trial, then it was a pyrrhic victory.
i need to confront her about what documentation she has to pass on to me, tomorrow.
but, if it was done at the expense of me understanding the accusations against me, or putting me at a disadvantage in relation to the trial, then it was a pyrrhic victory.
i need to confront her about what documentation she has to pass on to me, tomorrow.
the crown did read something into the record.
it could be that that was all there was to it, but i know i wasn't getting the whole picture. what do you do, in that scenario? you can hardly escape the cage and barge in. you just have to figure out what happened and hold people responsible for it accountable for it.
they obviously can't conduct a bail hearing without me, and then tell me that evidence is admitted later. that's all on the record. they'll all get fired.
but, none of this can happen, it's all impossible.
so, we'll see what the transcript says, right?
it could be that that was all there was to it, but i know i wasn't getting the whole picture. what do you do, in that scenario? you can hardly escape the cage and barge in. you just have to figure out what happened and hold people responsible for it accountable for it.
they obviously can't conduct a bail hearing without me, and then tell me that evidence is admitted later. that's all on the record. they'll all get fired.
but, none of this can happen, it's all impossible.
so, we'll see what the transcript says, right?
i was not asked to testify.
i was not asked to present evidence.
i was told this would occur later, both by the counsel provided and by the justice.
again: i accepted duty counsel because i was unclear of the proper procedure and unable to research it. when told that the evidence would be presented later, i knew it seemed wrong, but i deferred, due to being unable to verify it. and, i am confident that the charges would have been dropped outright if i had been given the chance to present anything at all resembling a case.
hrmmn.
if i got fucked around at the bail hearing, that's just another reason to sue the city.
let's see what the transcripts say...
i was not asked to present evidence.
i was told this would occur later, both by the counsel provided and by the justice.
again: i accepted duty counsel because i was unclear of the proper procedure and unable to research it. when told that the evidence would be presented later, i knew it seemed wrong, but i deferred, due to being unable to verify it. and, i am confident that the charges would have been dropped outright if i had been given the chance to present anything at all resembling a case.
hrmmn.
if i got fucked around at the bail hearing, that's just another reason to sue the city.
let's see what the transcripts say...
see, this is not what happened.
and, i asked about it, repeatedly.
i was told by both duty counsel and by the justice that no analysis of the evidence would occur until a pre-trial.
i was brought into the court at 16:45 and asked if i agreed to the conditions or not. i did not see a witness. i did not see an officer. i did not get a chance to present evidence. i pointed out that this seems wrong, and was told otherwise.
i have not met my accuser.
the more layers of corruption there are, the more layers that will fall, in the end.
let's see what the transcript says...
http://lawfacts.ca/node/146
and, i asked about it, repeatedly.
i was told by both duty counsel and by the justice that no analysis of the evidence would occur until a pre-trial.
i was brought into the court at 16:45 and asked if i agreed to the conditions or not. i did not see a witness. i did not see an officer. i did not get a chance to present evidence. i pointed out that this seems wrong, and was told otherwise.
i have not met my accuser.
the more layers of corruption there are, the more layers that will fall, in the end.
let's see what the transcript says...
http://lawfacts.ca/node/146
ok.
i'm going to wait and talk to a lawyer about the holding cell video, as there's no obvious way to do it. i'll probably need to make a request to a judge.
i have a stress disorder. putting me in a cell on trumped up charges is pretty egregious. i don't think it'll be hard to get a judge to release the footage. but, it's going to take an argument of some sort. that's ok.
right now, i need to focus on getting full disclosure.
...and, on determining whether a part of the bail hearing happened without me, or not. i suspect that i missed some of it...it just didn't seem like the whole thing, to me...
i'm going to wait and talk to a lawyer about the holding cell video, as there's no obvious way to do it. i'll probably need to make a request to a judge.
i have a stress disorder. putting me in a cell on trumped up charges is pretty egregious. i don't think it'll be hard to get a judge to release the footage. but, it's going to take an argument of some sort. that's ok.
right now, i need to focus on getting full disclosure.
...and, on determining whether a part of the bail hearing happened without me, or not. i suspect that i missed some of it...it just didn't seem like the whole thing, to me...
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
because i'm not licensed, i need a judge to order the audio from the bail hearing.
that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?
worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.
i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?
it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.
that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?
worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.
i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?
it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.
so, what do i need to do for tomorrow?
1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...
i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.
i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.
1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...
i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.
i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.
i guess he wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom
i'm going to get something to eat first, but this looks like what i'm up to.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure
ok.
i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.
so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.
one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...
i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.
if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.
imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.
so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.
i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.
but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.
at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.
i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.
so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.
one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...
i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.
if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.
imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.
so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.
i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.
but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.
at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.
i suspect that the actual truth is that the situation was driven by the officer, who essentially filed a false report. but, this is what we'll need to determine over the upcoming weeks. either:
1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,
2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.
so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.
we'll figure this out, soon enough.
1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,
2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.
so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.
we'll figure this out, soon enough.
i really had no option but to sleep.
i'm up now....
the most annoying thing about what happened yesterday is that i lost the day to applications, and i'm going to lose the day today, as well, because i lost my voice. i spent much of the night and day screaming to see a judge.
i sound like a kid learning how to play the trumpet: sound for a second or two, and then wind. if i yell, it comes back a little. i probably just need to rest them. hopefully, i'll be able to talk again tomorrow.
20 hours. i was very close to being released; the magic number is 24.
i'm going to roll with the system so long as i have to, but i don't think things are happening the way that they're supposed to. i have yet to see the charges laid against me, or any evidence or arguments from the crown. i told them i was representing myself, but they put the situation in the hands of a duty counsel instead. she had a conservative approach that was focused on getting me out of jail, and she did - my conditions are that i can't apply to the ad again (until the charges are dropped) and that i can't be around guns, which isn't much of a condition at all. if somebody sees me with a gun, i'll have to pay a $100 fine. but, i would have taken a much more aggressive approach in insisting there are no grounds for any restrictions at all.
in my view, the situation essentially reduces to due process. the woman is making an accusation against me, and i need to defend against it. this accusation may be frivolous and vexatious, but i will need to suffer the consequences of it until that is demonstrated - and then be compensated for any damages i suffer as a consequence of it.
as this ad is posted every day, i'm of the opinion that i have every right to apply to this ad every time it is posted. i will continue to exercise my rights in due course. but, because i'm guilty until proven innocent, and i signed an agreement, i will need to back off for a few days or weeks.
i will be aggressively attacking this woman in the court. some cursory google research suggests that she has a history of filing vexatious charges, and usually has her cases dropped. i am absolutely willing to be the person that stands up and puts a stop to this, has her ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has her barred from further vexatious litigation. she should expect this to be very difficult. and, am i supposed to shed a tear?
i will be aggressively attacking the officer, as well, with the intent to have him fired.
i will be suing the city for emotional damages related to locking me up on false charges.
i will probably launch a civil case against this woman for damages resulting from having to fight off a harassment charge while i am trying to move.
and, i will be launching a human rights challenge against the apartment complex, as well. i was going to have a hard time doing that, up until this point, because i didn't have a lot of information. but, the information being presented by the court is full of language like "the tenant is not welcome". that is, her vexatious litigation is going to give me the information i need to prosecute her for discrimination, that i didn't previously have.
in ontario, applications may be denied for financial reasons like failing a credit check. but, telling a tenant that they are "not welcome here" is discrimination under the law. it's amazing that this ended up in the court documents, but i'll take my good luck, as it is.
obviously, my first order of business is getting the charges dropped, and i legitimately do not expect this to be difficult. i'm really fairly stuck until i can do this. i'm almost wondering if i'm better off waiting, so i don't scare off any potential landlords.
and, while i don't even expect the case to go to trial, there is an obscure possibility that i could be facing up to ten years' imprisonment. it's almost impossible for me to think about moving until the tenth...
yeah.
i'll need to file in the morning.
i'm going to accept legal aid, because it is available and it would be foolish not to. i don't want to pay for a lawyer, but i'll take a lawyer, for free. see, i think i understand the law well, and i'm good at winning arguments, but i'm going to need help with the procedural aspect of it. i really think what i need is a tutor, to help me through the procedure the first time. and, once armed with that experience, i can then represent myself in future cases. i'm expecting to hear something back by the end of the day, and, if i don't, i'll call after 17:00.
the one qualification i need to present is the following: given the context, i need the lawyer to be female. and, you can expect me to show up to court looking pretty, too.
i'm up now....
the most annoying thing about what happened yesterday is that i lost the day to applications, and i'm going to lose the day today, as well, because i lost my voice. i spent much of the night and day screaming to see a judge.
i sound like a kid learning how to play the trumpet: sound for a second or two, and then wind. if i yell, it comes back a little. i probably just need to rest them. hopefully, i'll be able to talk again tomorrow.
20 hours. i was very close to being released; the magic number is 24.
i'm going to roll with the system so long as i have to, but i don't think things are happening the way that they're supposed to. i have yet to see the charges laid against me, or any evidence or arguments from the crown. i told them i was representing myself, but they put the situation in the hands of a duty counsel instead. she had a conservative approach that was focused on getting me out of jail, and she did - my conditions are that i can't apply to the ad again (until the charges are dropped) and that i can't be around guns, which isn't much of a condition at all. if somebody sees me with a gun, i'll have to pay a $100 fine. but, i would have taken a much more aggressive approach in insisting there are no grounds for any restrictions at all.
in my view, the situation essentially reduces to due process. the woman is making an accusation against me, and i need to defend against it. this accusation may be frivolous and vexatious, but i will need to suffer the consequences of it until that is demonstrated - and then be compensated for any damages i suffer as a consequence of it.
as this ad is posted every day, i'm of the opinion that i have every right to apply to this ad every time it is posted. i will continue to exercise my rights in due course. but, because i'm guilty until proven innocent, and i signed an agreement, i will need to back off for a few days or weeks.
i will be aggressively attacking this woman in the court. some cursory google research suggests that she has a history of filing vexatious charges, and usually has her cases dropped. i am absolutely willing to be the person that stands up and puts a stop to this, has her ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has her barred from further vexatious litigation. she should expect this to be very difficult. and, am i supposed to shed a tear?
i will be aggressively attacking the officer, as well, with the intent to have him fired.
i will be suing the city for emotional damages related to locking me up on false charges.
i will probably launch a civil case against this woman for damages resulting from having to fight off a harassment charge while i am trying to move.
and, i will be launching a human rights challenge against the apartment complex, as well. i was going to have a hard time doing that, up until this point, because i didn't have a lot of information. but, the information being presented by the court is full of language like "the tenant is not welcome". that is, her vexatious litigation is going to give me the information i need to prosecute her for discrimination, that i didn't previously have.
in ontario, applications may be denied for financial reasons like failing a credit check. but, telling a tenant that they are "not welcome here" is discrimination under the law. it's amazing that this ended up in the court documents, but i'll take my good luck, as it is.
obviously, my first order of business is getting the charges dropped, and i legitimately do not expect this to be difficult. i'm really fairly stuck until i can do this. i'm almost wondering if i'm better off waiting, so i don't scare off any potential landlords.
and, while i don't even expect the case to go to trial, there is an obscure possibility that i could be facing up to ten years' imprisonment. it's almost impossible for me to think about moving until the tenth...
yeah.
i'll need to file in the morning.
i'm going to accept legal aid, because it is available and it would be foolish not to. i don't want to pay for a lawyer, but i'll take a lawyer, for free. see, i think i understand the law well, and i'm good at winning arguments, but i'm going to need help with the procedural aspect of it. i really think what i need is a tutor, to help me through the procedure the first time. and, once armed with that experience, i can then represent myself in future cases. i'm expecting to hear something back by the end of the day, and, if i don't, i'll call after 17:00.
the one qualification i need to present is the following: given the context, i need the lawyer to be female. and, you can expect me to show up to court looking pretty, too.
the last 30 hours have been absurd.
full write-ups will happen over the evening. but, i now have to fight an absurdly frivolous harassment charge over the next few weeks, which is going to make it difficult to find an apartment. i think i'm actually dealing with a dumb cop. but, i'm now going to fail a criminal check, until i can get the charges dropped..
i have no choice but to appeal and will probably file it immediately in the morning.
in the long run, i expect to end up richer from this. a lot richer. in the short term, it's massively disruptive.
this is a letter meant for potential counsel.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/kafkavsorwellinreallife.html
full write-ups will happen over the evening. but, i now have to fight an absurdly frivolous harassment charge over the next few weeks, which is going to make it difficult to find an apartment. i think i'm actually dealing with a dumb cop. but, i'm now going to fail a criminal check, until i can get the charges dropped..
i have no choice but to appeal and will probably file it immediately in the morning.
in the long run, i expect to end up richer from this. a lot richer. in the short term, it's massively disruptive.
this is a letter meant for potential counsel.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/kafkavsorwellinreallife.html
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
on that old debate as to whether kafka or orwell was the better prophet...
i had to get a few hours of sleep when i got home, as i hadn't slept in custody. they picked me up right before i was going to make spaghetti and take a shower, too, to end what was already a long day. so, i need to recuperate a little tonight.but, you are correct: i am a creature of the internet, and i make arguments better in writing. you also tend to take control of conversations, which is a good trait, but i learned a long time ago that i need to write an essay, sometimes, to accommodate for disconnects with certain personality types.
i was barely awake during our conversation outside of the court, but if i remember correctly, you were going to speak to legal aid and get back to me before the end of the 26th. i'm hoping that this essay can find it's way to a potential lawyer that is making a decision on taking the case, as i don't think this case is really about harassment on my behalf, but more about police harassment against me. this essay should form the basis of my defence. i don't think that a bail hearing was the right time to have this discussion, but, as mentioned, it would have required a soliloquy from me that you weren't likely to grant.
i got arrested for repeatedly applying to an ad for housing on the internet, and essentially charged with stalking somebody that i've never met. i had a speech prepared, but i didn't need to use it, because the justice didn't need to hear it - how do you get from being persistent in applying for housing (however annoying...) to criminal harassment directed at a specific individual unknown to the accused? and, this was really the crux of the matter from the crown's perspective. the bail conditions were set up to treat me like i was stalking this woman, and she required protection from me, when the reality is that i was being persistent in looking for an apartment, and had no idea she even existed. the justice immediately realized that disconnect. i think you saw the gulf in logic, too. even the crown seemed less than convinced that this was worth her time, frankly. so, how do you get such a ridiculous charge out of such a benign behaviour?
ockham's razor really suggests something else is at play, and i do believe that the actual issue was that the officer was out to get me. if we need some alternate way to explain how somebody gets arrested and held for 20 hours for replying to a non-personal ad on the internet, this is the answer that seems most apparent. i had not only dealt with this officer previously, he had threatened to charge me with harassment previously, and i had in fact filed a complaint against him with the oiprd. while i do not claim to know whether caroline chevalier's fears are real in her own mind or not, i think the irony of the situation is that her narrative suggests some paranoia or ptsd on her behalf, and that that may require some treatment for her own well being. i don't want to seem insensitive towards people that are dealing with real harassment, as i actually have a great deal of empathy, but i must be adamant that this is not it, and that any attempt to frame the issue as one where a potentially vulnerable female is being threatened by a rejected suitor or aggressive pursuer is not consistent with any evidence that actually exists. i was pursuing an apartment, and under the impression that the person on the other side of the machine was ryan myon. this is a case the crown appears to be pursuing due solely to the nature of the report that exists, rather than any meaningful evidence, which reduces to an issue of framing by the officer. as such, i think this is the real issue before the court.
i initially had contact with this officer in the summer of 2018 on an unrelated call regarding a conflict between my neighbour and i about the issue of secondhand smoke. i am living in a unit with poor flooring, on top of a very heavy marijuana user. i must keep the windows open at almost all times to prevent being stoned by the second-hand smoke. this is the topic of a suit i filed against my landlord, swt-16361-18. i actually took myself to the hospital at one point and tested positive for thc, from the second-hand smoke. at the start of the summer, a new tenant moved in next door that insisted on getting very drunk and chain smoking regular cigarettes directly in my air supply, leaving me in a situation where if i closed my window i'd get stoned, and if i opened my window i'd get smoked on. frustratingly, there is a very big yard next door, and no reason this person was required to smoke in my air supply. after several polite attempts to ask her to smoke elsewhere, i resorted to more powerful tactics, including blaring loud music and yelling rude things out the window.
there's no question that i've been very rude to this person, but there's no question that she's been very rude to me, too. she doesn't have the right to smoke wherever she wants, and i don't have the obligation to live in her smoke, but most smokers don't see it that way: they think they do have the right to smoke wherever they want, and everybody else does have the obligation to deal with it. what should have been a polite and neighbourly request to move a few feet away from the building turned into frequent yelling matches with a quite belligerent drunk. and, at some point she decided i was harassing her and called the cops.
now, this is really a situation without a proper remedy. i believe i should have some legal recourse to prevent her from smoking in my air supply. if these were private houses, rather than apartments, i could sue for trespass; i can't really do that, in the existing situation. i've explored the idea of having her charged with nuisance, and i'll get to that in a second. but, there really isn't anything i can do in this situation besides make the experience unpleasant, and hope she smokes somewhere else - which is in fact what happened, in the end. but, i'm cognizant of the law, too. i knew not to threaten her or make her feel unsafe - just to be irritating enough to get under her skin. i don't expect she had the same subtle understanding of harassment, and consequently felt justified in calling the police for being irritated.
i believe that the first time i met the officer that pressed charges (an "officer muntino") was on a call from the neighbour that i was harassing her by yelling things out the window at her. and, i actually think that the key bias underlying the charges that were pressed comes from this encounter, directly. while i don't recall all of the mean things i said to this woman to try to get her to smoke somewhere else, i can be certain that i didn't say anything racist, for the reason that i'm not a racist. i'd just never do that, and i'm confident i didn't. there's certain things that you make sure you don't say to a black person, that you very carefully avoid, at all times. but, the smoker does happen to be quite visibly african in descent. i don't know how this information found it's way to the officer. it may have even been coerced by the officer, who could have accidentally framed the issue that way. but, when the officer appeared at my door, he accused me of hurling racial slurs and was quite angry and perturbed by it. again: it's hard to know what the smoker is thinking. but, the thing is that it isn't actually true. i simply wouldn't do that. this officer then reassured this woman that she has the right to smoke wherever she wants, which just fed into more conflict in the space. fwiw, she has no problems yelling transphobic slurs at me, and doesn't think twice about it, but i don't care as long as she smokes somewhere else.
as mentioned, i am of the opinion that she should not be legally permitted to smoke at such a close proximity to my window, and i should have a legal method at my disposal to force her to move. i couldn't get bylaw to do anything. trespass doesn't make sense in context. i can't sue the landlord next door for reasonable enjoyment. but, in researching approaches, something that struck me as potentially worthwhile was building evidence for a possible nuisance case. i tried exploring these options with police, and was told i need to establish intent. so, i started filming her while she was smoking - and telling her why i was doing it. i then got a second visit from officer muntino, ordering me to stop filming her smoking, under threat of being charged with...
....criminal harassment.
i told him that i was building a case for nuisance, and he said there's no such thing as criminal nuisance. there is of course such thing as criminal nuisance, and this behaviour is not harassment, either. i was not charged for this, for obvious reasons. but, there's a commonality in these cases - this cop likes to throw his weight around, and ultimately doesn't know what he's talking about.
the story i'd like to paint is one of a cop that is convinced i'm a racist, and is essentially out to get me, so jumped on an opportunity to charge me with harassment when he finally could, as trivial as it might actually be. but, i'm not a racist. nor am i even very white, really. i'm just a non-smoker trying to find a healthy place to live.
the report i filed with the oiprd on sept 16th is based on a different narrative of the events that occurred in relation to this case than the one presented by the crown. from file #E-201809161252432765,
Your complaint details
Address
15-851 tuscarora
windsor
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature.
Incident Dates
Date
12/9/2018
Time
3:56
Date
16/9/2018
Time
12:00
Summary of complaint
Please note formatting has been stripped for preview purposes - original intact
this officer has threatened me with arrest for a non-crime on two occasions. the first occurrence occurred by phone, and i have a recording of it. the officer called me at 3:56 am - that is almost 4:00 in the morning - on sept 12, and threatened to arrest me for repeatedly responding to an online ad. the number that the officer called me from was (removed). i txted a response to this number, and was told it is not an officer's number. it must have been a friend or partner's number, i suppose. i do have the recording of the officer identifying himself and can email it somewhere. i explained that my behaviour - repeatedly responding to an online ad for an apartment - is not harassment under the criminal code, and not only would i not stop, but i am preparing a human rights case against the landlord, for discriminating against me on enumerated grounds. the second occurrence happened at roughly 12:00 pm on sept 16th. two officers showed up at my door (the other was a white male officer and said nothing during the encounter), and this "constable mancino" threatened me with arrest a second time if i did not stop responding to the ad. i asked the officer to explain what harassment under the law is, and he failed to do so in a correct manner. he seemed to believe that harassment is merely annoying somebody, rather than threatening to harm them. of course, if that were true, then telemarketing would be against the law, and the jails would be full of call centre agents. it's just wrong. after determining that the officer did not understand the law, i told him i didn't have time for this, encouraged him to launch a report if he wanted to and went to close the door. he then put his foot in the door, preventing me from doing so. i informed him that he does not have a warrant, and yet he still refused to move his foot. he did eventually move his foot after i asked him to several times. he then threatened to arrest me if i reply to the ad again - not if i conduct in threatening or harassing behaviour, but if i merely reply to the ad. on his way out, i asked him for his badge number and he refused to give it to me. he started with "184" and then said he already gave it to me, which he did not. even if he had already given it to me, that would not be a reason to not give it to me again. when a citizen asks for a badge number, an officer should state it slowly and repeatedly if necessary. this officer may have been acting out of bias regarding my gender identity, as i am openly transgendered, but i cannot state that for certain. regardless, he should not have called me at 4:00 am from an unofficial police number that may or may not have belonged to his friend or partner, he should not have threatened me with arrest without understanding the nature of the law, he should not have prevented me from closing the door without a warrant and he should have given me his badge number when i asked. i would suggest that this particular officer has a superiority complex, is unreformable and should probably look for a different line of work.
i was arrested on the evening of sept 24th and held for 20+ hours before being released.
while i understand that i am the one on trial, i think that the evidence against me is so flimsy as to dispense of it rather quickly, and i think that it is the officer that truly needs to stand trial here. i believe the case should be dismissed, that this officer should be severely disciplined and that i should be compensated generously for the ordeal. so, i would hope that potential counsel would be looking towards the longer term, in turning the situation over: for the person being harassed here, and quite violently, is in fact actually myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)