well, then.

that was an ordeal.

as of approximately 7:00 am this morning, my existing landlord is served with an appeal via giving the documents to her husband via police mediation. the plan was to fix the flat on my bike on the way there, but i couldn't get the right kind of tube and had to leave it locked at a canadian tire overnight. i thought it was a short walk from there; it wasn't. so, i had to stay up all night in a tim horton's and knock on the door repeatedly in the morning.

the walk to the landlord's place to personally serve the originating documents required multiple detours around highways and nature reserves in order to ensure an experience of unbroken suburbia - and minimal threat of attack by coyotes or cougars. or bears, for that matter.

this city is bigger than i thought it was. but, like detroit, it's mostly due to sprawl.

my feet are literally bleeding.

and, as of approximately 6:00 pm this evening, it seems as though i've found a place around the corner from here.

is it better? absolutely.

1) steam heat. so, not as dry.
2) it's $700 + hydro. if i stay here, i'll be paying $680 all inclusive as of april 1st. and the hydro should balance out with the oesp - i don't have or want an a/c and i'll conserve the juice if it's my purse. i don't know if i should expect yearly increases at the next place. if i don't get an increase until early 2019, which i think is likely because they can't increase for a year, it will likely literally balance out - because if i stay here i'll be paying very close to $700 on april 1, 2019. the difference may end up little more than a few months ahead on the inflation.
3) 4th floor means fresh air. no smokers through the windows. no cat shit on the window sill. it's not on a main street. it also probably means no roaches, so i should be able to keep the lights off most of the time. and, it means i'll get the heat rising from the units underneath me, rather than the freon pushing down rom upstairs.
4) it's about the same size, footage wise. the kitchen is smaller, but that doesn't mean anything to me. the stove works, which does. the bedroom is a bit bigger. there's storage space in the walls, which i'm keen on. i'll have to set the space up so the studio merges with the living room, which is a more normal arrangement for me, anyways. it's clear at this point that i won't be having anybody over, anyways.
5) tub, not a shower. better for shaving.
6) a block closer to the tunnel. same distance to convenience stores.

we negotiated a deposit over the phone; i'm going to sign a lease tomorrow. but, i'm going to post-date the check anyways, right? so, i'm thinking that if i can just give her the full first & last post-dated to the 30th then maybe she'll give me the keys early and i can start slowly walking things over. ideally, i'd be able to clear this place out in the next few days and then get some student movers to quickly take the rest out around the 1st. and, then, i don't need to carry through with this.

until i have the keys in my hands, i need to carry on with this process - which means mailing the letter tomorrow afternoon and setting myself up a flow chart of timelines, tonight.

i'm going to need to get to odsp, as well, and figure out what they'll pay for.

and i need to eat.

no. i need to serve personally.

they have kids. somebody will be home at 7:00. i presume that mom is living there, right now.

if i can't get it to the landlord, i can give it to an adult member (it might be mom. maybe the husband.) and then mail a second copy of it the next day.

and, i have a week to keep trying...

it's a decent bike ride. nice nights. i'll enjoy it.

showing at 4:00. then, this gets done.

no, i should sleep, and get back to it when i'm fresh.

that wasn't as hard as i thought, after all. i just had to get my head around what i was actually doing, first. it developed quite quickly, after that.

i have my two documents done. now, i  need to get them into the hands of my landlord. i just need to make sure i understand those rules.

i'm also going to need to get some documents down to city hall, including a request for a transcript of the audio from the last court date.

i'm still awake, so i'm going to keep going. first showing today is at 4:00.

step one.

done.

next, i need to get a list of the evidence. then i can serve. tomorrow, maybe...

i was going to drop it off, but i want to double check the rules around mailing. here's the thing: i fully expect them to lie and say they never got it. so, does that matter, really, if i mail it?

what if i use registered mail, or something? a tracking number...

i'll look into it.

Divisional Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N :

TA

Applicant

(Respondent in Appeal)

and

Jason Parent

Respondent

  (Appellant)

Proceeding under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

 NOTICE OF APPEAL

                THE APPELLANT, JASON PARENT, APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of Lorraine Mathers (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Oct 23, 2017 made at London, Ontario.

                THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order be granted dismissing the application dated Aug 30, 2017 brought by  to terminate the tenancy for landlord’s own use (the n12).

                THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the board that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the board did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The board did not even analyze this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the board decided not to address a question it was legally required to address, according to Forgie v. Widdicombe Place.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member (Elizabeth Usprich) claimed that the board had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness standard of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the board does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence when presented with it and must refuse eviction if necessary. In not upholding the existing precedent, the adjudicator exceeded her bounds and did not respect her jurisdiction.

4.        And, as the board does not have broad discretion under the case law, and the adjudicator must follow the existing precedent, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. The question of the applicability of 83(3) should consequently be examined on a reasonableness standard of review: the divisional court must do the proper evidentiary analysis that the adjudicator failed to do.

5.        Further, given once again that the board does not have broad discretion under case law, and must follow the existing precedent, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

Specific Errors That Affected the Decision

6.        The adjudicator erred in claiming that “the tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction”. An analysis of the audio will indicate that the tenant was in fact explicit about the particulars, and related it clearly to the previous case, SWT-01670-17, which was the primary basis of the defence under s. 83. The adjudicator could not have analyzed the relevant evidence under s. 83(3) if she claims it was never presented.

7.        The adjudicator erred in not drawing the obvious inference between the warning left on March 31^st and the previous case, SWT-01670-17. This was necessary in order to come to the proper conclusion. The adjudicator simply ignored the context around this evidence, then claimed the tenant never presented it.

8.        The adjudicator erred in deducing that a “written warning and final notice” is not a threat of imminent action, or indicative of an intent to evict.

9.        The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the letter left on April 1^st as an obvious set-up attempt.

10.     The adjudicator erred in claiming that “I note that there was no evidence in the Tenant’s email describing the events that suggested the Landlord threatened eviction”.

11.     The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the emails around the claimed difficulties in electronic payment on august 1^st as a clear documentation of a second obvious set-up attempt.

12.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on August 10^th was without cause (for being off of the property), and was a third clear obvious set-up attempt.

13.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on august 11^th was also without cause, and an actual clear admission of retaliatory action – a fourth obvious (if strange.) set-up attempt.

14.     The adjudicator erred in failing to deduce the obvious truth that re-serving already voided n4s is a clear indication of a desire to terminate the tenancy.

15.     The adjudicator erred in stating “Further the two letters the Tenant received gave no indication that the Landlords were seeking termination of the tenancy.”

16.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “First, if the Tenant did not raise that specific argument at the hearing it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review”. Forgie provides a clear precedent otherwise: that the adjudicator must interpret any evidence of this nature that exists. Yet, the fact is that the tenant did raise this argument, which can and will be demonstrated via the court audio.

17.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “The hearing member has broad discretion in issuing her order.”. Again, the precedent in Fergie and Chin is that the refusal is mandatory upon the existence of the relevant evidence

18.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “Rather it seems that the Tenant is attempting to re-argue his (sic) own position.”. Rather, it seems that the member is unaware of the proper precedent, in context.

General Error

19.     The board also made repeated errors in terms of the concept of a burden of proof, suggesting that it is the tenant’s responsibility to prove that the landlord is not in good faith. This is just a basic error of law as the burden of proof always lies with the party presenting the argument. We can’t have a system where landlords are free to make whatever claim they want, and just dare the tenants to prove them wrong, if they can. That’s really absolutely ridiculous: of course the burden of proof was with the applicant. These strange arguments may indicate a bias on behalf of this adjudicator towards property in general.

                THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario.

                The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.

getting there...

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the court that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the court did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The court did not even admit this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the court decided not to address a question it was legally required to address.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member claimed that the court had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness case of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the court does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence and must refuse eviction if necessary.

4.        And, as the court does not have broad discretion under the case law, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. This consequently should be re-examined on a reasonableness standard of review.

5.        Further, given once again that the court does not have discretion under case law, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

this is the meat and potatoes. i'll nitpick a few other things, because i can't bring anything new up after the fact, but this is what i'm focusing on.

i can't challenge the faith ruling. that's up to to the adjudicator - i have to wait until after the fact and sue, then. and had she examined the evidence, i'd have a hard time filling this out. but she was hasty. and maybe didn't take me seriously. and i have a good case for review, i really do.

if i move, it will almost certainly be to toronto.

i have better access to trans doctors, there.

and i have no interest at all in moving back to ottawa.

i'd say 90% likelihood to toronto, vs. 10% likelihood to waterloo. those are the only two serious options, right now.

but, i'm going to need to exhaust my options on appeal, first. that will likely take a long time. i guess if it happens i'll have to put my things in storage and hitchhike down there and live in shelters until i find something.... then i'll have to ship my things from windsor to toronto....

yeah.

seems like that's right.

well, here's the thing - i came here because it was cheap. and, it was cheap because nobody wanted to live here because there aren't any job opportunities.

if the housing situation in windsor is going to stay like this because it's become a magnet for migrants, i might have to migrate somewhere else.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-year-later-almost-1000-syrians-at-home-in-windsor

you know, i have to wonder if the low vacancy rate here is a consequence of the high number of refugees that were settled here. it's less that prices have gone up and more that vacancy rates have gone down.

i was actually hoping that an influx of refugees would lead to an increase in public housing, but that hasn't happened; instead, vacancy rates have just decreased.

nor, did i expect windsor - which has the highest unemployment rate in the country - to be a prime destination for settlement. why would you put refugees in an area of high unemployment?

well, unless you want to increase rent. but, that's market theory. and, market theory is bullshit. again: the prices really aren't higher, there's just nowhere to move to.

but, these people don't want what i want. they want to generate income. they want fancy houses. they want to send their kids to school. so, they're apparently moving west in large numbers - where they're told there's more economic opportunity.

again: i don't really think that increasing immigration is going to solve the country's economic problems. but, at the least, let's bring in wealthy immigrants. bringing in refugees is just always going to be a net drain.

and, no, it's not their fault. they took an opportunity. blame the government, not the refugees. and, don't even blame the government for bringing them here - blame the government for not investing in them properly, once they did.

you know, i might be able to win a case on reasonableness, anyways.

i would rather have the court consider correctness.

but, i guess the truth is that they're going to make that choice based on existing case law, and i don't even really get the benefit of a presentation. i'm going to throw all this shit down on the table, and they're the ones that are going to determine the correct standard of review.

reasonableness is supposed to provide for a lot of deference. but, it's not total. it needs to look at whether the ruling falls into a reasonable set of possible outcomes. the idea is that the court can set up a kind of multivalued function, but it's not supposed to pass judgement on the outcome, so long as it falls into the correct range it's defined in the mapping. but, it has to define the mapping, first. and, if i can convince the judge that the legislation is such that this outcome is outside of the proper mapping - because the adjudicator misinterpreted the evidence - then i could conceivably get the court to rule the outcome is unreasonable.

i should make both arguments.

1) the outcome is unreasonable, because the statue provides for minimal discretion.
2) the outcome is incorrect, because the statute provides for minimal discretion.

i guess the point is that the statute provides for minimal discretion, and she misinterpreted the evidence, producing a result that is both incorrect and unreasonable.

yeah.

ok.

i think i've got that clear in my head, now.

this day was less productive than i wanted, but i feel like i'll be awake for a while still.

i did see one place. it was a basement, not an apartment. i need an apartment. i left some messages. i have some showings tomorrow.

i'm hoping to serve on thursday, if i can get the documents in line.

i have 30 business days to serve from the 27th, but i need to get it done with enough time to get the stay to the sheriff.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"so, what work did you produce on your shift this afternoon?"

"seventeen hamburgers, thirteen fries and twelve milkshakes."

no. that's not work!

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i abuse the language like everybody else, but virtually every job in this economy is neither a job, nor is it work. it is a slave relation that prevents an individual from carrying out meaningful labour, or doing meaningful work. for, every moment that is spent doing forced labour is a moment that is lost in free labour.

and, what drives all of this slavery is the market, under the tyranny of the necessity of rent.

in a capitalist economy, nobody chooses to work to pay rent. rather, we are enslaved to produce a surplus value for the rentier class. we are all prostitutes, so why punish prostitutes? and, that endemic slavery - which most of us don't even acknowledge - prevents us from working on meaningful projects like science, literature and art.

the market allows the ownership class to discard labour it does not feel is valuable. this surplus labour is then left to starve. this is the category i exist within, largely by choice. because i want to spend my time on meaningful work, not on the forced labour that defines our economy.

but, in enlightened societies, the state steps in to stop nature from running it's course.

we need more subsidized housing. that's where i should be. that's what i need. that's what i want.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

it wouldn't make any sense for me to go out in a murder-suicide until i'm done my discography - and, even then, i've still got a lot of writing to do.

see, this is the point you're missing: my rejection of capitalism is not a reflection of my disinterest in meaningful work, but of the wasteful non-work that it forces almost everybody to engage in. capitalism is not work. capitalism is pointless labour, in the absence of meaningful work.

and, i have no interest in family or status; if i had a family (and i did...), i'd reject it (and i did...).

might i kill you all in the end? well, there's some logic in it. but, it's going to be a long time before this presents itself to me as a serious option.

right now, i need to find some place to exist to finish my discography in. i thought it was here. it should have been. but, i can't control who buys the building.

i'm not done here, yet, either. i'm making a good faith effort to find something. but, i'll probably be in this building for another five or six months, at least.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i may have to make some fancy arguments. and, if this goes on long enough, i may end up writing some case law.

i acknowledge that it would initially seem like the proper standard for review is reasonableness and there should be deference to the body. but, the ruling was incorrect! so, i need a way to get them to rule on the right question.

if an explicit clause written in the legislature is enough to allow for deference, you'd think an explicit clause would likewise be enough to remove it. and, 83(3) is a hard stop.

i need to go back to the fact that the adjudicator didn't mention the documents. she didn't dismiss the evidence. she just ignored it. and, you ought not to do that.

so, how can the court rule in favour of deference when the legislation is written to all but abolish discretion, and the adjudicator clearly applied too much of it, to the point of explicitly excluding imperative evidence? this would be an obvious case for a correctness review, by order of the legislature.

the problem is that i don't have the right case law, and i consequently might not get a good reaction at a lower court. this happens sometimes - a hole in the law exists, and the lower courts can't plug it without the proper ruling coming down from up top. so, the lower courts just keep putting down dumb rulings.

i get the idea behind deference. but, this is exactly the situation where they need to use correctness.

i think i'm getting some sleep.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so...

i did study the difference between reasonableness and correctness; i did study dunsmuir. this isn't greek. although, having studied mathematics deeply and having dabbled in philosophy....i'm not terrible with greek.

i get the broad idea of what i need to do.

as i've stated repeatedly, i think the ruling was incorrect: that i provided plenty of evidence of the action being retaliatory, that i explicitly mentioned it more than once, including at the end, and that the adjudicator had minimal discretion in ruling under 83(3). she just wasn't paying attention; she'd already made up her mind. and, she done fucked right up, she did, yup. this argument is clear enough in my mind.

Further, subsection 83(3) provides for mandatory relief from eviction in certain situations. If the Board finds that any of clauses (a) to (e) of subsection 83(3) applies, the Board must not grant the application to evict.

what's daunting is the formalities, the pomp, the procedure. because there isn't an instruction manual - or at least i haven't found it yet. and, what i'm going to do wrong here is screw up a technicality...

i was actually glad to see that the precedent is dunsmiur. something familiar. an anchor. 'cause i remember that shit...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

the cold, rational truth is that this woman ignored very good evidence and a very clear law in front of her and instead made the conscientious choice to toss a disabled person out on the street.

it's really the old problem with property, isn't it?

i maintain that the ruling was incorrect relative to the law - that the law recognizes this kind of inequity, and has clauses designed to prevent it. but, if the adjudicator is a bitch, then the adjudicator is a bitch. i'm actually confident i'll eventually win this thing, via enough appeals - but i really hope i'm gone by then.

but, whatever argument you want to make in terms of the value of property (which i'm likely to tear apart...), you're always left with the reality that property really is theft. and, there's not any rational way to deny this: my apartment is quite literally being stolen from me.

the correct answer is to abolish property. and, while the canadian system of property is more feudal and tory than it is anarchist or mutualist, it kind of comes around to the right answer. or, at least it should. at least, it's written to.

again: that's why this woman isn't a judge - she really didn't have the wisdom to balance this well. i quite literally have nowhere to go. she's quite literally tossing me on the street. and, i consequently have no choice but to drag this out.

i guess i had to catch up on some sleep.

then i had to do some grocery shopping, this morning. i shipped 48, 56. six orders left.

i got something to eat this afternoon, and it's been a little slow getting to the next point.

i'm caught up in the listings. there are actually a few more interesting things, but i couldn't get through to anybody. there's some long shot viewings tonight.

but i'm going to have to spent the rest of the night preparing documents, because i intend to serve tomorrow.

this is the vlog for nov 3-5, where i close inri057, go to see lee renaldo in detroit and don't get home until the next morning.

there was a big issue in canada a while back around usage-based-billing, and the activist response was generally to push back against it by throwing around horror stories about paying for heavy data use.

but, i never really cared about what happens to these heavy users, because i'm not one.

if i'm paying $25 for 200 gb, that means i'm paying $0.13/gigabyte - and that if they charged me by usage, my bills would be less than $5/month. the cost per gigabyte would have to increase by over 1000% to get to the price i'm currently paying.

so, my self-interest was always in usage-based billing. and, i'd love to see somebody defy the court and offer that option.

free wifi. how appealing is this, really?

in absolute terms: not at all. i'd far rather have my own internet connection, and i'd far rather it be wired. but, there's some other factors to consider.

my current plan is no longer being offered. it's a 6/2 plan with 200 gb in downloads during peak periods, unlimited downloads after 2:00 am and unlimited uploads altogether. frankly, at $24.95/month, i'm overpaying for usage - because my total monthly usage is closer to 20 gb (and sometimes to 10 gb). october was 9.82. september was 11.09.

because i don't watch porn, i don't need more than 30 gb in usage. an ideal plan would be 50, but that's a big buffer - it's twice what i need. and, i've never been upset about the 6/2. if somebody were to offer me a quarter of the usage for a quarter of the price, i'd take it.

the entry plan for teksavvy in my region is currently 15 mbps, at $35/month + hst. i would just consider a forced upgrade to be a cash grab; i don't want it. but, it means that the value of the free wifi is not $28/month, but $40/month.

what that means is that a $625 apartment is really more like a $585 apartment, if it's offering wifi for free - and that a $750 apartment is more like a $710 one.

of course, i'll need to ask some questions. i wouldn't notice any difference in going from 6 mbps down to 4  mbps down, but i might notice a difference in going from 2 mbps up to 1 mbps up. and, anything slower than that isn't really useable. but, i'd rather get a 4 mbps connection for free than pay for a 15 mbps connection.

it's something else to think about.

i have some showings tomorrow night, and some more on wednesday. some things came up this morning, but i slept all day after an all nighter in detroit. i'll need to make those calls in the morning.

for the rest of the night, i'm going to try to get some work done.

no.

screw it.

this is a 4xcd set, and that's all there is to it.

on second thought, i don't like the idea of having two different versions of the same release.

so, it's going to be two double hybrid eps: a double hybrid double ep. but, note that both of the hybrid double eps can be split into doubles...

and, inri058 is done, too, but it's been created with a unique problem - there's now four full records worth of material attached to it. it's five hours. how's that for crazy, right?

i wasn't expecting bandcamp to even let me do this, but i'm going to be offering it in two and four disc options. the four disc option will be $28 - it's four ep singles. the two disc option would be a double hybrid double ep single and run for $20. the difference would be that the four disc option would give you everything on cd, whereas the two disc option would give you half on cd and the other half as a download only. i have other double hybrid ep singles attached to symphonies 1 & 2 as precedent.

i'm aware that this is nuts. but, i had download only tracks to start with - it was two full discs, plus 35 extra minutes of download only. i've extended the ambient mix and added an ry30 mix, which is another ten minutes. but, it's then an aesthetic problem to have that much as a pure download. one track on each side, and you can let it slide. 45 minutes over three tracks, and there's already a third disc.

then, i'm stuck with a three piece record again, and i don't like these.

it was easy to fill up another disc: 50 minutes of 2002 mixes (these are worthwhile, in truth), 25 more for the 2009 youtube mix (which i felt was overlooked to begin with) and nineteen more for a final drone mix. that;s four discs, full: 77, 75, 75, 79. it's just under five hours...

the way this will work is that the 2xcd version will be the version that's been up since late 2014, plus added downloads between the tracks.

it will make more sense when i show you.

this is the sum total of the completed rabit is wolf studio experiments, which wound through a number of paths on their way to the project's eventual collapse. while there would be further acoustic demos recorded with sean, i ultimately decided to abandon their folky underpinnings and finish all further tracks as electronic, instrumental recordings. a tour ep of the final recordings exists as inri059.

the recording was initially sequenced as a demo in mid may, 2002 but i foolishly deleted the files (i was running low on hard drive space) only to find out that the burn was corrupt and that the result was skipping. i did eventually recompile an ep of material, but it was in a different order and made no attempt to mix the tracks together. in reconstructing the demo, i've decided to recreate the original sequencing. the only difference between this collection and the initial collection is that the last track now includes sean's vocals, whereas it was initially an (eventually rendered incomplete) instrumental recording.

i need to be clear that the decision in sequencing the material this way is unilateral on my behalf. during this period, sean had made it clear that he was not satisfied with the more experimental and electronic tendencies underlying some of the tracks; specifically, he wasn't happy with the first or last tracks on this disc, as he felt they did not represent his vision for the project. on the other hand, i was less interested in purely acoustic music and more interested in electronic music. i was envisioning the project as having a split personality between an acoustic live presentation and an electronic studio presentation. sean argued this would be disorienting; it's less that i disagreed with him and more that i thought that was a good idea. this divergence in vision is one of the factors leading to the project's dissolution.

while i feel this recording stands up on it's own, i've also taken the time over the second half of 2014 to reclaim some of the tracks as my own instrumental works. only tracks two and four exist uniquely as rabit is wolf collaborations; the other four tracks have been resequenced as completed instrumentals in my main recording sequence. please open the track pages for more information.

written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. initially sequenced in may, 2002. released in slightly different forms from 2002-2014. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. disc finalized as lp013 on nov 3, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017). 

credits

released June 20, 2002

j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), effects, bass, synthesizers, digital piano, electric air reed organ, flute, drum programming, drum manipulations, vocal manipulations, loops, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production, cover art.
sean - vocals, lyrics, harmonica (1), ring modulator (6).

greg - drum performance sample source (5,6)
jon - guitar performance (2) 

this is the vlog for nov 2, 2017, where i close inri056.

republishing inri056

time & psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy, somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well, so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp on...

time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.

the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.

the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.

i started working on what would become my seventh symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the seventh symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit is wolf.

written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017). 

credits

released March 10, 2002

j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & processing, drum manipulations, orchestral & other sequencing, drum notation sequencing, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.

sean - vocals, lyrics (3,7)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3, 5-6)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron. 

also, just to kind of get a point across...

it doesn't cost me anything to go to court.

and, nobody's ever going to collect on any damages, either.

i have better things to do, of course. but, this is of minimal risk to me...

my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.

but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.

i can be a little more specific.

the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.

this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.

first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis). 

this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.

but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.

to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.

her formal argument is in the form of:

1. x ----> y 
2. y

i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.

so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.


second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.

see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).


the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.

in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.

this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.

i have no choice but to appeal.

yeah, i got the denial in.

it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing. 

she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.

then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!

she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.

the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.

i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.

this is the vlog for nov 1, 2017, where i close inri055 and finish inri056.

i'm just trying to imagine what i'd do if you permanently took away the gear.

i'd just snap. i'd be drunk all the time. i might end up in jail, even. i'd just stop caring at all.

and suicide is really a likely end point.

like i say - if it comes down to it, i'll go homeless in order to put my stuff in storage. i'd rather pay $400 for storage and eat out of a shelter than pay $400 for a room and sell or lose my gear. it's saving the electronics that will take priority over everything, even my own safety.

yes, i'm a materialist. i'm all about possessions. and i don't have any patience for your stupid hippie bullshit.

and, no, i can't sell my gear - i wouldn't have any reason to exist, without it.

that would be a death sentence. i would kill myself. because i wouldn't have any reason to keep living...

it's kind of a real point when you're talking about a room, too, right.

i mean, i can't live in a room. i have thousands of dollars worth of gear. i can't leave it in the living room. i need a door to lock it behind. if it comes to it, i'll have to put it in storage, and i'd be more likely to just live in a shelter until i can find an actual apartment.

but, that's just the point: living in a room necessitates that you waste whatever extra money you have, because you can't spend it on anything valuable because you live in a room.

sure: an extra $400/month could be spent on gear. but, then i'd need an apartment to store it. i can't buy expensive gear and leave it in the room, that's not safe.

i guess if you're obese, you could eat more. i'm not going to do that.

on top of that, if you're stuck in a room, you're likely to feel the urge to get drunk, because you're bored and depressed, and perhaps stressed out from the forced interactions with the other tenants.

so, i can't even make sense of what the intent even is. i'm not asking for special treatment, here. this is just a stupid way to manage something. it's really a very potent recipe for encouraging alcoholism, as far as i can see.

with low income tenants, you should be trying to taking away as much money from them as you can.

i'm just trying to, like...

35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash.

what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?

i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on?

if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.

i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.

it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.

republishing inri055

my memory is a little fuzzy with this track, other than that it was constructed all at once in the middle of the night on a cold february morning in a basement that wasn't well heated.

i believe that sean initially brought in the a capella vocal that is heard in the acoustic demo under the request that it be developed in a folky style, and the track was built from there. we seem to have done the live version the next week, meaning i must have written it over the week.

there was some hard drive corruption as the demo was being recorded. i was in a glitchy mindset at the time and decided the skips ought to be interpreted musically. i'm not sure i'd make the same choice now, but i'm not willing to second guess myself, either. so, i skittered up the bass and organ parts to make the entire track sound glitchy to compensate for the skips. i also ran the vocal file through a musical algorithm that involved slowing it down and pasting it over itself to create a collage of voices somewhat similar to a robotic choir. as the track is otherwise rather pastoral, all of this glitch provides for an unusual juxtaposition.

as mentioned, the track was built up quickly, but it was always meant as a demo. that is to say that the vocal-driven 2002 version of the track was not complete, and was never completed.

i came around to completing it as an instrumental work in mid october, 2014. the removal of sean's vocals required some mild rethinks in terms of melodic content, but the real additions are threefold. first, it is substantially remixed to make it sound thicker. second, some sound design or soundscaping was constructed, mostly for the beginning of the track, but some guitar parts were also added throughout. third, drums were added. this converts the track out of folk (a genre i spend almost no time in) and back into psychedelic pop (my usual home) with hints of fusion, prog and idm. as it is, this can be viewed as the definitive (if non-comprehensive) third incarnation of rabit is wolf, which was being torn between freak folk and folk punk tendencies in it's general tumbling towards "folk".

written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final fuck boxes mixes were finished on nov 15, 2014. the gentle mix was created and then left stranded on may 24, 2015. the ambient mix and the guitar mix were rendered on nov 1, 2017. disc finalized on nov 1, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2015, 2017). 

credits

released february 20, 2002

j - electric & acoustic guitars, analog & digital effects & processing, electric bass guitar, electric air reed organ, electronic drum kit, voice (1, 5), sampling, sound design, vocal manipulations, digital wave editing, production

sean - vocals/lyrics (2,3,4) 

if i'm going to launch a human rights complaint against marda, i'm going to make it class action.

let's shut these fuckers down altogether.

...and, i'm not ready to find a boyfriend, right now. i probably never will be.

a roommate is a non-starter because of the gear. i couldn't make it make sense anyways - nobody is going to let me set up a drum kit in the living room.

could i take a temporary apartment in a part of town i don't like, and then just leave everything packed and bail the moment something better comes up?

i might have to, maybe.

i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.

if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.

that doesn't look as bad as i thought.

maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.

but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.

i need to reiterate the point.

i've never missed a month of rent. never been late. was usually early.

and, i have $1500 in the bank to put down on first and last.

the problem is that the only vacancies in my price range are run by a management company that is illegally pushing down a rent to income ratio, and is refusing to rent to people with student loan defaults.

i could very well walk out of here via the process of putting my items in storage, and ending up in a hostel. and, odsp might even pay for it.

if i were to leave windsor, where would i go?

the only place that makes any sense right now is toronto. but, i'd have to hitch-hike down there and search for something out of a tim horton's. and, it's only going to happen when i'm done the legal fights here.

i could end up in the hostel for months because i have to stay here to sue these people.

it's an absurd situation. i have the means to pay, and there are vacant units in my price range, but i'm not allowed to apply for any of them.

i need to get caught up on the discography, because it's becoming clear that my main focus for the foreseeable future is going to be fighting multiple legal battles, simultaneously.

this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit.

if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.

i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?

but, i may very well literally have no other choice.

if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.

if not, this could be a really long slog.

gah.

i was focused, then scattered after lunch.

nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?

"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."

ugh.

well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.

inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-and-rental-housing-ontario-background-paper/minimum-income-criteria#fnB216

it turns out that marda is not just preventing access to showings based on credit history, which is barely legal, but is also restricting access to showings based on income - which is completely illegal.

i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.

what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.

but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.

how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?

my expenses would be as follows:

725 (rent)
  85 (medication)
    0 (they advertise free wifi)
  60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
  20 (laundry)
-----
1090

but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.

so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?

- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)

you get the point.

but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.

the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.

ugh.

fucking rentier capitalists with their property as theft. they ruin everything. never fails.

the single most important factor for me is that i need to be within a half hour walk from the tunnel.

so, that rules out the whole sandwich area - which is a pretty boring part of town, anyways.

i'm a downtown person. i want concrete and streetlights. i want 24 hour convenience stores. and, i don't want wild animals.

i also don't want to live on campus, or to close it. i don't get along with the younger generation very well. and, they don't recognize me as older than them. if i end up moving close to campus, i'm going to end up telling a bunch of kids to leave me alone.

the ideal zone is really a four or five block radius away from where i am. i'd rather move closer to town than away from it. and, stuff is coming up here. i just have to be patient.

it seems like hallowe'en is a holiday in the real estate business. nothing up today. but, i'm going to make a call around noon.

i'm going to be working on inri055 today, i think. i'm just waiting for information, right now.

i left a mix of this aside in may, 2015 but i don't quite remember why. my notes aren't helping. i know i wanted to redo the ambient mix - which wasn't very ambient - but that doesn't really explain why i have this transitional thing that i put aside. i kind of remember thinking that i just liked the combination as it was.

i also wanted a guitar mix.

so, that's three combinations. and, it should get the disc close to fill.

this is the vlog for oct 31, 2017, where i close inri054.

but, i stand by the view that a credit check is essentially useless for low income people.

you could have spotless credit. if you're low income, and you get fired, you're fucked. you could default. you could get evicted for non-payment. and, it wouldn't have anything to do with your existing credit. it's just a function of being poor.

it works the other way, too: you could have terrible credit, because you were fired, and you were evicted. you could have defaulted. you might live on social assistance, or you might have just had a bad year. it doesn't mean you're not getting money in NOW.

a credit check is designed for middle income people making middle income investments. it's an abuse of the procedure to use it as a means test to allow or disallow low income people into housing - because it's as likely to be wrong in it's conclusions as it is to be correct.

...and i don't want to hang out with boring bourgeois assholes or pretentious hipster dipshits. at all.

if i actually had a government or office job, i'd be the one that never goes to staff parties and eats lunch at my desk. because, i really don't want to hang out with you.

if it comes down to it, i would rather be unemployed and stay in than be employed and not be able to go out because i have to work.

ok, here's another idea: parking.

there's some bigger apartment buildings running around 760-775. i'd be permanently defaulting on night-life to take that; i'd be falling from $200/month spending to under $100/month spending and, with the exchange, it would really leave me without the ability to go out very often. once a month. i could gamble on settling down a little anyways, but i'm not comfortable with defaulting on the option. and, rent isn't where i want the funds to disappear to.

but, if i get a dedicated parking space - which i will never use. i don't even have a license. - i could rent it out for what looks like more than $50/month. all of a sudden, that looks affordable. and, if i could just let the building deal with it maybe they'd cut the rent down by the difference...

on top of that, i can always *ask* about separating the hydro. then, the 775 potentially falls to 700. and, if i explain the scenario, i might get a reasonable reaction.

a big one bedroom apartment on the 6th or 7th floor with decent anti-smoke insulation (no balcony) would be a definite improvement. if it only costs me $30/month, after everything, that's a positive investment.

i can make some calls tomorrow.

i'm done for the night. i need to focus on the discography for a few hours.

but, what you're saying there - that attitude of yours, those beliefs, that perspective - is exactly why i've been speaking out against you.

1. atheist speaks out against the oppression of theist doctrines.
2. theists oppress atheist.
3. atheist says "see?".
4. theists oppress atheist.
5. goto 3. 

you don't even have to give me hemlock. it's as old as fucking time. 

it's not irony. it's not prophesy. it's just obvious. and, i'm aware that you really won't get it if you're stuck in the fucking cave of religious ignorance.

but, i can hardly stop saying "see?".

see?

i'm also going to have to see if i can try and contact some of these property owners directly and explain to them that this management layer isn't just wasting them money but is actually preventing them from bringing in reliable and quality tenants.

i've had problems here, but it's because the family that lives here are idiots. most property owners would side with the tenants that want to mitigate smoke damage and cat feces on their property, not the ones that want to maximize the damage to it. nothing makes sense, here.

the truth is that i've treated this place better than the family that owns it does - and i've only come into conflict when i've insisted that they treat it better than they do.

i made a few calls this morning, but nothing much came up over night. there's one option that's a little more than i want but might be better - it's up a few floors, and the smoke issues might be better. but, it was up on short notice and i'm supposed to call back on friday.

i'm going to get something to eat and then give myself a few more hours. but, i'm going to need to pay my rent this evening if nothing else comes up before 17:00 - and then i'm looking for december 1st.

i've also decided that i'm going to get the appeals process in motion once i pay the rent.

the core loops involved in clarity were initially created in the late summer of 2001, with the intent of being the opening sequence in a new inri project (with the long kicked-around working title of 'trinri'). while i had fairly firmly put the inri moniker down around my 19th birthday (late 1999), i was also coming out of a lengthy "serious music" phase and was getting a desire to write in a more structured, synth-pop type direction, as i had for years previously. this urge was happening about the same as i was being coerced into starting a rock band with some high school acquaintances.

around october, i started working on a separate noise project that was meant to splice harsh electronic noise with anarchist politics. this produced two tracks at the time, which are now available as a short single as inri032. at the time, it wasn't clear to me where those ideas would lead.

by november it was clear that the rock band wasn't happening, but it turned out the singer had tastes that correlated reasonably well with what i was thinking about creating for the trinri project. these two projects consequently merged into rabit is wolf, and the material i was kicking around for use in trinri ended up becoming the core of what rabit is wolf became.

as i was recording parts for clarity, i ended up reusing ideas from the noise project. i further reused those ideas in constructing a 2004 noise collage for inclusion on the record that finally came out of the noise project. both noise collages are present in order to comprehensively explore the ideas existing within clarity.

zen was recorded with sean over december, 2001. i have chosen not to complete a version of the wave (inri053) that was also being discussed at the time, but would have fit into this release well, conceptually.

clarity was completed (with vocals) over january, 2002. the nature of rabit (along with the songs i had written for it) took a sharp turn towards folk almost immediately. this collection is consequently quite different than the official rabit demo, which is much more song-oriented. over the years, i've always wanted to have a rabit release that was darker, noisier and more chaotic and am glad to have it in the form of this ep-single, which could be viewed as a secondary demo. put another way, this is the comprehensive representation of the second (electro/noise/industrial) incarnation of rabit is wolf.

however, there are two factors complicating clarity as a solely rabit is wolf production. the first is that sean was never really happy with the result - a shame as i consider his vocal performance and lyrics to be the best of the songs we did together. the second is that i always felt the track was "mine" and should have had an instrumental mix. that is, i've always regretted not saving an instrumental mix.

for these reasons, i've revisited the track as an instrumental and left two snapshots - 11/2001 and 01/2002. this second snapshot (which is to be considered a final mix) will also appear on my upcoming 6th record, dated to the end of 2002.

recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. track 6 was constructed in may, 2004 out of files recorded 1999-2001. tracks 1-4 were reconstructed over october, 2014. final mixes were finished on october 18, 2014. disc closed on oct 30, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2001, 2002, 2004, 2014, 2017). 

credits

released February 1, 2002

j - guitars (electric, acoustic, nylon), mandolin, sequencers, synthesizers, drum & melodic programming, electric air reed organ, digital piano, flute, drum kit, sampling, digital and analog effects processing, digital wave editing, sound design (loops, granular synthesis, noise generators), production

sean - vocals/lyrics (3,5), harmonica (4,5) 

 

hi.

my landlord is taking over my apartment for personal use. i need to be
out in a few weeks. you seem to be building a monopoly on vacant
spaces in this city, and you won't rent to me because i've defaulted
on my student loans. this is effectively cutting off my right to
housing.

but, this is not a good reason not to rent to me.

my loan default is a real thing, this is true. however, because i live
on disability, there is essentially no way for the state to collect on
it. i have done my due diligence and applied for loan forgiveness, and
they have told me that although i am permanently disabled i am not
"severely" permanently disabled, which is some kind of kafkaesque
nonsense. but, what it means is that, while the loan will continue to
collect interest for the rest of my life, this has no actual effect on
my income.

the fact is that i get around $1200/month from the government, every
month. this income cannot be touched by any collection agency. nor is
it under any threat of market failure - i cannot get fired, i cannot
get laid off, and i cannot get outsourced. if you were to compare me
to a wage worker, and you were to measure my value as a tenant solely
on my ability to pay, you'd have to conclude i'm a far safer gamble
for the reason that i'm immune to market forces.

i understand that you don't want to rent to people who manage money
poorly. but, student loan defaults are going to be an increasingly
common fact of life in this city, and if you are going to command so
much of the empty rental space, you should really be approaching the
situation a little differently.

i have been in this unit for four and a half years and i have never
paid my rent late. these payments will come in every month into
perpetuity. it makes no sense to deny me housing for this reason -
because i am a model tenant.

j

i want to be clear about how this company works.

let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.

you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.

this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board.

and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit.

is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.

i could maybe file once i find somewhere.

that apartment i went to see was a little small, but i expected that.

the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:

1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.

2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.

this is windsor.

it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.

i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.

i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...

if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.

and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.

i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.

today didn't yield much - i'm going to look at something tonight that's a bit smaller but would give me an extra $50+ in my pocket a month, maybe $100 in the summer, but he got really apprehensive when i told him i'm on odsp. people have a lot of prejudices about this, and i'm fully aware of the problem of productionism, especially in a post-industrial area like this where there's so much unemployment, and it's created these hierarchies of exclusion. it's up to me to convince him that this attitude is just literal stupidity - i cannot work by doctor's order, and i have the safest check in town - but it's not the easiest thing to do. you'd think self-interest would be easier to enforce, but conservatism goes out of it's way to enforce irrationality and anti-intellectualism. i can't get fired. i'm guaranteed rent. pull your head out of your calvinist ass and recognize the superior tenancy value that i offer...

i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.

the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.

unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.

so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.

i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.

but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.

i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.

that was a bust.

the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?

well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.

so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.

if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.

my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.

today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.

so, again: should i have taken the pay out? if i leave, i just lost hundreds of dollars i could have taken, right?

no.

if i had signed an agreement to move out, then i'd have to move out - i'd have no options to appeal. maybe i'd find something better. maybe i wouldn't.

and, i did look - i couldn't find anything better.

this particular unit came up the same day as the trial. i couldn't have organized this.

if i had organized a move-in before hand, would it have made sense to take the cash? sure. but, i didn't know that, then. i could have agreed to move and then ended up with nowhere to go. that's not rational self-interest, it's risk - and i'm exceedingly risk averse.

i would argue that it's far more rational to lose the pay out than to take a risk of ending up optionless. i guess you could have that argument. but, you'd be warping logic around dramatically to do it.

on top of that, you have to remember that i still think they're acting in bad faith and i'm still intending to sue when i figure it out. so, i have a plan to get those funds, in the end.

you can argue i got unlucky. i might even agree with you. but, i made the rational choice in the context of maximizing self-interest.

i got something back from the one i'm most interested in.

monday viewing, apparently.

like i say: i need to better my situation in order to do this. this does it.

i've been saying for years i'm waiting the existing tenants out, and i am, but that in itself is only proving so worthwhile. even if the guy upstairs keels over tomorrow, and they sell next week, i still have to deal with the fact that the neighbours are smoking outside my window, the cats in the neighbourhood, etc.

i thought i got rid of a problem upstairs when the three pack a day smokers moved out, but the lady that moved in sits on her porch and smokes all day, which means i lost all the windows in the front - and the air return along with it.

there's no solution to the roaches, or the gas smell, which is coming back again with the cold weather. there's some kind of mildew in the walls. the place really ought to be condemned. i mean, that's why it's cheap, right? that's the point. but, i can maybe do a bit better...

i got a lot of work done down here. and i would tough it out if i wasn't being coerced. but, maybe it makes sense, anyways.

if they are actually moving her mother in here - and i doubt it - i pity her for what she will endure down here.

if they put it on the market, which i'm sure they will, i'll recoup more funds through legal action. and, these are funds i should be able to keep.

today is a discography day. i'll get back to looking tomorrow.