so, i was distracted by the court thing - and that's going to be a constant for a bit.

& i had to sort of reconnect with myself over facebook, to remember how i was doing this.

...but, 07/2016 is now completely reconstructed.

july was very busy, which is what i intended at the time. august & september were messy, but i did get back to work in october, and both november and december were quite productive. so, the rebuild for the next two months is going to shift back to the politics side, which actually might mean it could come through a little quicker. we'll see.

it's at the end of december that i'll do the final close on inri000 - yeah. inri000. - and i'll have to figure out how to do it. i will need to date it to the current date, whenever it is in 2018 (hopefully not 2019). but, i'll have to figure out what i want to include over the last two years. i suppose i should leave a skeleton on the personal drama, meaning i could theoretically get through it quickly. i have no alter-reality posts at all for inri001, so i'll have to decide whether i want to layer them in as i go or leave them for last.

remember: the politics blog is going to flip over in november, so the remaining component to layer in will be the vlog posts. what that means is that i could just put the vlogs aside. and, i wouldn't be losing anything with it, because i now have the time stamps. hrmmn. yeah. that's maybe a good plan...

i'm going to eat, and then get ready to head out to do some shopping. i'll be spending the rest of the morning cleaning, with the aim of getting into the shower before i get into a clean set of sheets. i will then have a pile of clean clothes to sort through when i wake up. some of it needs minor sewing attention, some of it maybe doesn't fit as well as i'd like, and might not again in the future. i made the error of doing a lot of my new wardrobe shopping before fat redistribution.

speaking of which, i'm long overdue for some "new" clothes, too. that's maybe something to do this winter, as well.

i'll be back at august within 48 hours, i hope. i want these prints destroyed asap, but it makes the most sense to wait for a response, as the superior court process could take years.

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

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

so, the updates are at the politics site - i will be filling them in as i catch up. but, the short update is that i was able to move on october 2nd, and am now able to get back to work for a few days.

it's been a messy month, but i think things are beginning to stabilize.

unfortunately, i have multiple lawsuits to deal with and that will slow me down for a while. but, i'm no longer going to be in need of constantly searching for housing all day, every day.

Request For Further Disclosure

Hello.

I am requesting further disclosure on the case of Regina v. Parent, J. Case ID: 79487. 

This letter is being prepared for delivery to the Crown Attorney’s Office in Chatham, via the Windsor Office. It will also be presented to the Justice of the Peace and the Crown’s Representative in court room 6 on the morning of October 24th, with intent to schedule a follow-up court appearance on October 31st. I am willing to schedule a resolution meeting and subsequent pre-trial as soon as I am satisfied with the disclosure on the topic, but not before then, so long as the court allows for the reasonable delay.

With that said, I think that it is reasonable to review the situation, up to this point, to understand the nature of my requests for further disclosure. Something went very wrong here, and I want to get to the bottom of it.

I was arrested, without being shown a warrant, on the evening of September 24th (the details of which are best left for the trial process, but center around a “threat” i made to take the complainant, an upper class landowner, to the human rights commission for discrimination in housing, i think with cause - a threat the complainant decided was harassment) and held for approximately 20 hours before being released on a recognizance of $100 and an order not to communicate with the complainant, or be near any kind of weapons. I was fingerprinted. The crown initially had a lengthy list of demands on my release, included $4000 bail, but the justice rejected each of them as without evidentiary basis. An extremely oppressive impact statement - where I was accused of being “illegitimate” and “unwelcome here” - was bizarrely read into the record by the crown, ironic (and relevant) given the circumstances of being accused of harassment for “threatening” a discrimination suit. I was then formally charged with harassment and ordered to appear before the court in two weeks, under the assumption that the crown was moving forward by indictment, as I had been fingerprinted and arrested and held for nearly 24 hours.

I appeared before the court on October 10th and explained that I had not yet received disclosure, despite making a formal request on October 1st (and an informal request on Sept 27th). It was decided that we should give the crown another week for disclosure, and I should come back again for October 17th.

On October 11th, I was told that there was a conflict of interest on the case, and the file would be moved to the Chatham office. I was not given any information regarding the nature of this conflict of interest, and still do not know why the file was moved. I am requesting this information as a part of the full disclosure. At my last appearance on October 17th, it was decided that the crown should be given another week, due to the circumstances around the conflict of interest.

On October 22nd, I received this disclosure and learned the following things:

1) I was indeed arrested without a warrant, before I was fingerprinted and held for 20 hours.
2) The charge summary states that I was held for those 20 hours for SHOW CAUSE - that is, I was literally held without cause. I suppose that somebody decided they could figure that out later, and then never did.
3) The crown will be proceeding summarily, on a conditional discharge around the recognizance conditions. No jail time. No indictment.

So, I was arrested without a warrant for “threatening” to file a discrimination suit, fingerprinted and held without cause for 20 hours before the justice finally dismissed the crown’s position as having no evidentiary basis. Then, after the crown declared a conflict of interest on the file, and you will note that the complainant is a powerful and wealthy landowner, it eventually elected to proceed summarily - after it had already held me for 20 hours and fingerprinted me. It almost seems as though I was being sent a message not to file. So, who is being harassed here? 

I will be following through with a charter challenge around s. 9, for arbitrary detention as a consequence of police harassment, to begin with, and am requesting detailed disclosure for that reason. 

Please provide the following:

1) A detailed explanation of why the case was moved from the Windsor to Chatham offices, on a conflict of interest. 
2) All audio/video and photographic material of the accused (myself) in custody, including the audio/video & transcript of the bail hearing. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
3) All fingerprint and mugshot reports, to prove they occurred, as they should not have occurred. 
4) A detailed history of any previous complaints that Caroline Chevalier or Ryan Myon have filed with the Windsor Police. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
5)  Any reports surrounding the mental health of the complainant, as her statements suggest she may be suffering from a schizo-affective disorder and/or paranoid delusions. I will be requesting a full psychological evaluation of the complainant.
6) Transcripts and audio of any and all communication between the complainant and police from July 1st, 2018 to the present. There is an acknowledged conflict of interest on the file.
7) The original statement from the complainant that was read at the bail hearing. This appears to have been modified in the disclosure package. There is a conflict of interest on the file, and it is relevant to better understand the complainant’s true motives in filing charges.
8) The discipline record of the officers, particularly officer montino. There is a conflict of interest on the file.
9) Any record of charges filed against the complainant, including charges of filing false reports or charges of criminal harassment.
10) Transcripts, email records and audio of any and all communication between the original prosecutor and the officer, and between the original prosecutor and the complainant, and between the original prosecutor and administrative and management staff in the attorney general’s office, and any other known recorded communication with anybody that works at 200 Chatham Street East regarding this case, or regarding the complainant. There is a conflict of interest on this file.
11) A complete record of all “emails” in full, not snippets taken out of context or enumerations of how many “emails” were sent on a specific date. This is not just relevant, it is the central aspect of the case. How can we determine if there is an objective ground to deduce that the communication caused the individual to feel threatened if it is not available to be examined in full? You’ve given me a mustard sandwich. Please arrange the “emails” in  absolute chronological order, and number them for the purposes of further reference, as detailed reference to them will be made in the course of the trial. There is no reason not to disclose the “emails” in full, and if you will not or cannot do so then you should end this absurdity and drop the case. This is the most vital evidence that there is, here.

I am also requesting that you remove the redaction on the following components of the initial disclosure:

1)  the confidential witness list. i claim this is relevant for the charter challenge, as we have an admitted conflict of interest and a potential bias in the officer’s conduct. this “confidential witness” may be the cause of the conflict, in which case it would be necessary to uncover the witness to carry through with the charter challenge. so, please provide an argument otherwise, or disclose on request.
2)  the mcneil list. i filed an opird report against officer montino on sept 14th, so this is more than relevant but necessary for the charter challenge. i suspect that this was redacted to protect the officer from potential charges and is withholding vital evidence. please provide an argument otherwise, or disclose upon request.
3) the cpic query on my name. why was this redacted? this is my own record. it may be useful for the charter challenge. and, i would like to see it simply because it was redacted - and frankly think that’s a good enough reason, too. so, please provide a reason you’ve redacted, or disclose.

I also have important documents to disclose to the crown and we can talk about that at the resolution meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you know, this is a hybrid offence.

they could have moved forward with an indictment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i was in custody, i could hardly refuse.

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

still awake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, i can't provide those responses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is legitimately a completely false report.

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

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

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

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

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

hey.

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

wait.

ok.

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

hrmmn.

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

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

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

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

but, the information sheet made a few things clear.

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

and, they want to proceed summarily.

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

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

why?

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

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

and, they will get what they deserve.

trust me.

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

no.

listen.

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

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

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

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

yeah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

one thing at a time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i do not yet have internet. tuesday. maybe.

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

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

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

i'm going to wait to type further.

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

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

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

i have a truck coming tomorrow morning. 

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

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

the hydro switches on wednesday.

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

i expect full disclosure by the end of the week.

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

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