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
Monday, October 30, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
well, i'm done for the day and what did i find? this was pretty exhaustive on my googling, i must add.
1) exactly one space that is a little bit more than i want to pay, but is also substantially better than this space. non smoking. up a few floors, to get some fresh air. a little closer to the tunnel. adt. a tub, so i can shave. etc. i'll need to close the deal, but i would move to this place if i could - and especially if i can shave a few dollars off. i'm waiting for a response from an ad without a phone number.
2) exactly one space that is a little bit cheaper than i'm paying here, and is comparable in terms of size, although it is one bedroom rather than two. depending on layout, that might even be better. i tried to call three numbers and am not convinced anyone of them are correct. this place may be smoky. i'd have to think about it.
3) exactly one space that seems like a lateral movement - but this may also include smoke issues. i'll have to look at this, but i'd probably turn it down.
4) several ads that were about fifty dollars out of my price range, and that i'd have to try and low ball.
if the first one doesn't work out, i can't state with certainty that something else will come up before it's time to stall via appeal. i'm just hoping the review body solves that problem the easy way.
1) exactly one space that is a little bit more than i want to pay, but is also substantially better than this space. non smoking. up a few floors, to get some fresh air. a little closer to the tunnel. adt. a tub, so i can shave. etc. i'll need to close the deal, but i would move to this place if i could - and especially if i can shave a few dollars off. i'm waiting for a response from an ad without a phone number.
2) exactly one space that is a little bit cheaper than i'm paying here, and is comparable in terms of size, although it is one bedroom rather than two. depending on layout, that might even be better. i tried to call three numbers and am not convinced anyone of them are correct. this place may be smoky. i'd have to think about it.
3) exactly one space that seems like a lateral movement - but this may also include smoke issues. i'll have to look at this, but i'd probably turn it down.
4) several ads that were about fifty dollars out of my price range, and that i'd have to try and low ball.
if the first one doesn't work out, i can't state with certainty that something else will come up before it's time to stall via appeal. i'm just hoping the review body solves that problem the easy way.
i'm going to spend the morning looking at listings and maybe make some calls around noon, if i find something.
but, the easy restatement of the logic is simply as follows:
1) can i find somewhere better? then, i'll take it.
2) if i can't find somewhere better, i'm hardly going to move to somewhere worse, so i'll appeal.
i do need to acknowledge that i am looking, though. that's a difference. it could take months to find something, but i am intending to eventually leave.
all of this other stuff is stalling, really.
but, the easy restatement of the logic is simply as follows:
1) can i find somewhere better? then, i'll take it.
2) if i can't find somewhere better, i'm hardly going to move to somewhere worse, so i'll appeal.
i do need to acknowledge that i am looking, though. that's a difference. it could take months to find something, but i am intending to eventually leave.
all of this other stuff is stalling, really.
Friday, October 27, 2017
it's 5:30.
i'm still awake.
when i turned the machine back on, i realized that the internet was randomly unplugged. that's quite bizarre. i was only gone for about an hour. if i get set up for something over usage while i was out mailing the review, it's documented over my camera.
the review got mailed. these things are low probability. but i think it's a necessity to try it. if i'm lucky, i'll trigger something.
stalling is a valid tactic, right now.
i spent the afternoon doing laundry and cleaning, and will have a smoothie and take a shower before i try to sleep.
so, what am i doing?
the review process has to unfold before i consider an appeal. but, this has to revolve around the market.
if i find something comparable, or maybe better (third floor would be better - no cats at the window), i would have to move at it. the thing is that i think that this is unlikely to the point of fanciful - i'm probably going to have to wait for months and months before something comes up on the market that i can accept as lateral. and, then what?
my options are very restricted by my gear and my income. it's a contradiction: i need a place big enough and safe enough for my gear as the absolute number one priority, but i also need it under $700. and, i can't and don't want to go to fucking work.
i moved 700 km to take this place. it was very hard to find. i didn't intend to move out less than five years later. and, it could take me a really long time to find a suitable replacement.
if i don't or can't find a suitable replacement, i'm going to have to go to the court of appeal as a stalling tactic. i have until around the 20th. i can't and won't move thousands of dollars of gear into a place it will be stolen, and i can't afford more than $700/month.
the likely reality is that i'm almost certainly stuck here. and. i'm not concerned about what the people around me think about it.
but, i have to look....
in the mean time, i have to find a way to multitask, too. maybe if i do one release a day, it'll keep me moving.
i'm still awake.
when i turned the machine back on, i realized that the internet was randomly unplugged. that's quite bizarre. i was only gone for about an hour. if i get set up for something over usage while i was out mailing the review, it's documented over my camera.
the review got mailed. these things are low probability. but i think it's a necessity to try it. if i'm lucky, i'll trigger something.
stalling is a valid tactic, right now.
i spent the afternoon doing laundry and cleaning, and will have a smoothie and take a shower before i try to sleep.
so, what am i doing?
the review process has to unfold before i consider an appeal. but, this has to revolve around the market.
if i find something comparable, or maybe better (third floor would be better - no cats at the window), i would have to move at it. the thing is that i think that this is unlikely to the point of fanciful - i'm probably going to have to wait for months and months before something comes up on the market that i can accept as lateral. and, then what?
my options are very restricted by my gear and my income. it's a contradiction: i need a place big enough and safe enough for my gear as the absolute number one priority, but i also need it under $700. and, i can't and don't want to go to fucking work.
i moved 700 km to take this place. it was very hard to find. i didn't intend to move out less than five years later. and, it could take me a really long time to find a suitable replacement.
if i don't or can't find a suitable replacement, i'm going to have to go to the court of appeal as a stalling tactic. i have until around the 20th. i can't and won't move thousands of dollars of gear into a place it will be stolen, and i can't afford more than $700/month.
the likely reality is that i'm almost certainly stuck here. and. i'm not concerned about what the people around me think about it.
but, i have to look....
in the mean time, i have to find a way to multitask, too. maybe if i do one release a day, it'll keep me moving.
they claim it was a bureaucratic error.
that's the kind of thing that's a piss-off. i don't know what i'm doing, yet, but i just blew a week of opportunity because an incompetent judge couldn't push a fucking button.
let's start with the review and go from there.
i'm sorry, buyer, but i can't ship until i know where i'm living, or at least i know what i'm doing. i won't even be able to think about it. i don't multitask well...
that's the kind of thing that's a piss-off. i don't know what i'm doing, yet, but i just blew a week of opportunity because an incompetent judge couldn't push a fucking button.
let's start with the review and go from there.
i'm sorry, buyer, but i can't ship until i know where i'm living, or at least i know what i'm doing. i won't even be able to think about it. i don't multitask well...
well, then.
the landlord and tenant board does not have any record of this decision at all - as far as they are concerned, the decision remains outstanding.
i need to send copies of the documents to the london, ontario bureau.
it's possible that the adjudicator got eager and mailed the documents without sending it to the rotary. that would be kind of suspicious on her behalf, frankly. i think that would be a pretty big deal. i'd have to look into that.
i'm still leaning heavily on balls out fraud. and, i don't know how big a deal this is - beyond being able to cite it in future harassment proceedings.
it's the kind of thing that makes everything else look really bad, too. if i can demonstrate a fake notice, i can demonstrate complicity in the death of jfk.
the landlord and tenant board does not have any record of this decision at all - as far as they are concerned, the decision remains outstanding.
i need to send copies of the documents to the london, ontario bureau.
it's possible that the adjudicator got eager and mailed the documents without sending it to the rotary. that would be kind of suspicious on her behalf, frankly. i think that would be a pretty big deal. i'd have to look into that.
i'm still leaning heavily on balls out fraud. and, i don't know how big a deal this is - beyond being able to cite it in future harassment proceedings.
it's the kind of thing that makes everything else look really bad, too. if i can demonstrate a fake notice, i can demonstrate complicity in the death of jfk.
i'm in a situation to cause them a real mess. it's their own fault.
i can file an appeal with the appeals court. it could take eighteen months to two years. that stays the order - it's a two year lease.
mom is two years away from retirement, and she was supposed to go to the home after that. well, it's what they said.
dad is probably two years away from dead.
and, then they probably sell - if not before then.
i have 30 days from the 23rd (presuming this is all legit) to serve to the landlord, then ten days to file the appeal. i should be able to get the internal review done quickly if i send it this morning. then, i'll serve them before the 20th in their actual damned mailbox. i can get the files to the court before the first.
i'm going to have to spend some time every other day looking at options. if something workable comes up, i'll have to call. but, the point is that there isn't anything workable out there - that i'm stuck here.
it's not like i'm acting in bad faith, either. i know they're full of shit. sure, i'm stalling, but this is what they get.
i can file an appeal with the appeals court. it could take eighteen months to two years. that stays the order - it's a two year lease.
mom is two years away from retirement, and she was supposed to go to the home after that. well, it's what they said.
dad is probably two years away from dead.
and, then they probably sell - if not before then.
i have 30 days from the 23rd (presuming this is all legit) to serve to the landlord, then ten days to file the appeal. i should be able to get the internal review done quickly if i send it this morning. then, i'll serve them before the 20th in their actual damned mailbox. i can get the files to the court before the first.
i'm going to have to spend some time every other day looking at options. if something workable comes up, i'll have to call. but, the point is that there isn't anything workable out there - that i'm stuck here.
it's not like i'm acting in bad faith, either. i know they're full of shit. sure, i'm stalling, but this is what they get.
there's a far easier point for appeal, as well - the claim that the
tenant has the burden of proof, here. that's utterly ridiculous. yet,
there it is.
if you make a claim in court, you always have the responsibility to demonstrate it. it doesn't matter what the claim is. the presumption of innocence is consequently merely a rule of thumb. the judge may have confused herself over this.
(if this is a real case).
if the state is accusing you of guilt, you have the presumption of innocence. but, if the state is accusing you of innocence, you have the presumption of guilt. if the state is accusing you of tiredness, you have the presumption of awakeness. & etc. it's not some moral principle. it's an application of the scientific method; a kind of null hypothesis - you start with the reversal of x and you determine if there's enough evidence to overturn x.
so, when the writer of this paper puts together the words that the tenant needs to show on balance of probability that the landlord's claim is false, she's not understanding what those words mean - that only makes sense in the context of reversing the null hypothesis. there's no balance of probabilities in overturning an assumption - it's by counter-example. and, that's impossible.
so, no wonder she didn't consider the right part of the law - she has her burden of proof backwards.
the idea that what somebody says in court should be treated as true unless it can be proven false is some kind of weird, classist backwardsness, or...i don't even know how to get my head around it.
if the tenant had the burden of proof, then the landlord would literally be able to make anything at all up and dare the tenant to disprove it. that's not how our legal system works, or has ever worked - and hopefully it will never work that way. that's not a justice system....
i'm leaning strongly towards "fake". a few more hours...
if you make a claim in court, you always have the responsibility to demonstrate it. it doesn't matter what the claim is. the presumption of innocence is consequently merely a rule of thumb. the judge may have confused herself over this.
(if this is a real case).
if the state is accusing you of guilt, you have the presumption of innocence. but, if the state is accusing you of innocence, you have the presumption of guilt. if the state is accusing you of tiredness, you have the presumption of awakeness. & etc. it's not some moral principle. it's an application of the scientific method; a kind of null hypothesis - you start with the reversal of x and you determine if there's enough evidence to overturn x.
so, when the writer of this paper puts together the words that the tenant needs to show on balance of probability that the landlord's claim is false, she's not understanding what those words mean - that only makes sense in the context of reversing the null hypothesis. there's no balance of probabilities in overturning an assumption - it's by counter-example. and, that's impossible.
so, no wonder she didn't consider the right part of the law - she has her burden of proof backwards.
the idea that what somebody says in court should be treated as true unless it can be proven false is some kind of weird, classist backwardsness, or...i don't even know how to get my head around it.
if the tenant had the burden of proof, then the landlord would literally be able to make anything at all up and dare the tenant to disprove it. that's not how our legal system works, or has ever worked - and hopefully it will never work that way. that's not a justice system....
i'm leaning strongly towards "fake". a few more hours...
on second thought, if this is a real order, i'm going to challenge it.
The tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction.
this is completely false - i provided the context of the previous court process. we spent quite a while discussing this.
given that the finding that there was no ulterior motive was made without considering the facts, and even attempting to ignore them by pretending no discussion was had, that's an error in law, and i can and will appeal this. that was the most important part of the case, and she pretended it didn't happen in order to hand wave away a s. 83.
she also claims one of the other emails didn't state a threat of eviction but only a "threat", which is what i was getting at with wilful blindness - as though it would be ok to threaten me, otherwise, and as though it doesn't have any effect on the case, right? i can dress a few of these up as errors given the first point.
i'm extremely skeptical, right now. this is clearly shoddy. and, that website is supposed to pull right from the database: it should update the same time that it prints.
The tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction.
this is completely false - i provided the context of the previous court process. we spent quite a while discussing this.
given that the finding that there was no ulterior motive was made without considering the facts, and even attempting to ignore them by pretending no discussion was had, that's an error in law, and i can and will appeal this. that was the most important part of the case, and she pretended it didn't happen in order to hand wave away a s. 83.
she also claims one of the other emails didn't state a threat of eviction but only a "threat", which is what i was getting at with wilful blindness - as though it would be ok to threaten me, otherwise, and as though it doesn't have any effect on the case, right? i can dress a few of these up as errors given the first point.
i'm extremely skeptical, right now. this is clearly shoddy. and, that website is supposed to pull right from the database: it should update the same time that it prints.
i seriously may have received a false order.
i'm just comparing to the previous one. i mean, i don't know...
1) there is no stamp on the order.
2) the previous ruling took two weeks. this one took two business days. i'm happy to get a quick ruling, too, mind you, but, still.
3) these people are horribly dishonest. i'm absolutely certain they opened the letter for the previous decision. i was actually expecting something funny, here.
4) it's not on the web page.
5) "this order contains all of the reasons in this matter and no further reasons will issue.". there is then no "reasons" section. ?.
6) the signature is curious to say the least.
i dunno. very fishy. i must call.
this is what the website should look like:
this is what it does look like:
would they do this? yeah. and, they're in huge trouble, if they did.
i'm just comparing to the previous one. i mean, i don't know...
1) there is no stamp on the order.
2) the previous ruling took two weeks. this one took two business days. i'm happy to get a quick ruling, too, mind you, but, still.
3) these people are horribly dishonest. i'm absolutely certain they opened the letter for the previous decision. i was actually expecting something funny, here.
4) it's not on the web page.
5) "this order contains all of the reasons in this matter and no further reasons will issue.". there is then no "reasons" section. ?.
6) the signature is curious to say the least.
i dunno. very fishy. i must call.
this is what the website should look like:
would they do this? yeah. and, they're in huge trouble, if they did.
well, this is unusual.
i have a letter in my box, but the online tool claims that the case has not yet been adjudicated. i'll have to call in the morning.
it's dated to monday, which is when it should have been finished. there is a good possibility that there's a database error. there's a good possibility that it's a forgery, given that these people are persistent frauds and liars.
the ruling is ordering me to vacate by december 1st.
however, it didn't address my legal concern under 83 (3)(c):
(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
this is supposed to be an automatic stop. and, it doesn't rely upon the question of good faith - even if the applicant is found to be in good faith (as they were, and as they may be), this is supposed to halt the proceedings in their tracks.
she did a balancing under 83(2) and she did it correctly. but she seems to be in error in not in contemplating 83(3) at all.
that said, she did state that the ruling of good faith is with no ulterior motive, and that would make it difficult for me to appeal - despite it obviously being wrong, and my case being quite well presented. she seems to have simply discarded the evidence i provided to her. that's why you don't want to put things in front of judges if you don't have to, they can decide what they want to accept and what they don't want to accept.
i might get lucky on finding a failing student that needs out for december 1st.
i disagree with this ruling - i think it was obvious that they're retaliating, and i made my case as best as was possible. i will be vigilant in suing them when i find out that their mother is not moving in - and she isn't. but, outside of verifying that this is the real case in the morning, i don't see a further course of action.
should i have carried on with the previous suit? it wouldn't have mattered much. they would have done this, anyways - it's why they were harassing me for months, because they wanted me out. and, if she was going to discard the evidence i gave her, she was going to discard the evidence i didn't give her - it wouldn't have made the case stronger than it already was. i gave her eight eviction attempts, and she just said the landlord has the right to hand out the notices - that's indescribable except through wilful blindness, when the ninth is an n12 on the same day as a previous case ended. if i had won the harassment suit, she'd just have said it doesn't matter because it's a different suit. and, how do you prove this beyond circumstantially, short of a recording? you have to rely on the judge to draw obvious inferences, and this one refused to do that. also, i wouldn't have been able to keep the money, remember - i'd have to give it back to odsp. it was about trying to stop the persistent harassment by standing up for myself, not about turning a profit. the other option was to keep getting harassed, which is a non-choice. and, while it failed, it provided me with the documentation i required for the case. i think i made the right choice in hoping it would blow over - if i had won, i'd have gained nothing of value because they were too fucking stubborn to listen (that was the sad realization i had to grapple with.). and, of course, i couldn't let the situation fester, i couldn't let them keep harassing me to try and push me out until they succeeded, i had to react in some sense.
this is a part of the law that shouldn't exist. but, it does exist. and, i got a shitty judge that either didn't want to see the obvious or didn't care what the obvious was. the next step has to be for me to find somewhere else to stay, and then sue them for damages and dishonesty once i get there - and that's going to be expensive on their behalf, you can be sure.
i'm also going to have to start from square one with the air quality. ugh.
i have a letter in my box, but the online tool claims that the case has not yet been adjudicated. i'll have to call in the morning.
it's dated to monday, which is when it should have been finished. there is a good possibility that there's a database error. there's a good possibility that it's a forgery, given that these people are persistent frauds and liars.
the ruling is ordering me to vacate by december 1st.
however, it didn't address my legal concern under 83 (3)(c):
(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
this is supposed to be an automatic stop. and, it doesn't rely upon the question of good faith - even if the applicant is found to be in good faith (as they were, and as they may be), this is supposed to halt the proceedings in their tracks.
she did a balancing under 83(2) and she did it correctly. but she seems to be in error in not in contemplating 83(3) at all.
that said, she did state that the ruling of good faith is with no ulterior motive, and that would make it difficult for me to appeal - despite it obviously being wrong, and my case being quite well presented. she seems to have simply discarded the evidence i provided to her. that's why you don't want to put things in front of judges if you don't have to, they can decide what they want to accept and what they don't want to accept.
i might get lucky on finding a failing student that needs out for december 1st.
i disagree with this ruling - i think it was obvious that they're retaliating, and i made my case as best as was possible. i will be vigilant in suing them when i find out that their mother is not moving in - and she isn't. but, outside of verifying that this is the real case in the morning, i don't see a further course of action.
should i have carried on with the previous suit? it wouldn't have mattered much. they would have done this, anyways - it's why they were harassing me for months, because they wanted me out. and, if she was going to discard the evidence i gave her, she was going to discard the evidence i didn't give her - it wouldn't have made the case stronger than it already was. i gave her eight eviction attempts, and she just said the landlord has the right to hand out the notices - that's indescribable except through wilful blindness, when the ninth is an n12 on the same day as a previous case ended. if i had won the harassment suit, she'd just have said it doesn't matter because it's a different suit. and, how do you prove this beyond circumstantially, short of a recording? you have to rely on the judge to draw obvious inferences, and this one refused to do that. also, i wouldn't have been able to keep the money, remember - i'd have to give it back to odsp. it was about trying to stop the persistent harassment by standing up for myself, not about turning a profit. the other option was to keep getting harassed, which is a non-choice. and, while it failed, it provided me with the documentation i required for the case. i think i made the right choice in hoping it would blow over - if i had won, i'd have gained nothing of value because they were too fucking stubborn to listen (that was the sad realization i had to grapple with.). and, of course, i couldn't let the situation fester, i couldn't let them keep harassing me to try and push me out until they succeeded, i had to react in some sense.
this is a part of the law that shouldn't exist. but, it does exist. and, i got a shitty judge that either didn't want to see the obvious or didn't care what the obvious was. the next step has to be for me to find somewhere else to stay, and then sue them for damages and dishonesty once i get there - and that's going to be expensive on their behalf, you can be sure.
i'm also going to have to start from square one with the air quality. ugh.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
i don't work well under pressure. i day dream. i procrastinate.
i'm a shitty employee, and not ashamed about it.
i'm more interested in creating realities where people can create free of coercive influence than i am in contorting myself into some mental gymnastic that sees value in extorting people for profit...
...and i needed a nap.
that's what happens when i'm under pressure: i get sleepy.
it's consistent, actually. predictable. dead line tomorrow? big project due in the morning? i'm probably snoozing somewhere. and, i'm not going to pretend i really care when i wake up, either.
call me depressed, but i don't want your drugs. i want to abolish the conditions that you think spur productivity, because they don't - they just create unnecessary stress.
still no ruling.
i hope the judge doesn't think she's doing me a favour in stretching the ruling out, if she's going to give me 11 days at the end. i haven't done a thing to prepare to move. and, i'm not going to do so until i get the court order - because it's not the landlord that has the legal authority, here, it's the judge.
if she's stalling into november to give me until december 1st, i guess that's a net benefit. but, if she thinks she's just giving me extra days, she's misinterpreting my grasp of the scenario: i'm in this to win, outright.
i'm going to try to get back to filing, but i might fall back asleep. we'll see.
apologies to the guy with the order, but i'm kind of useless at the moment.
and, i'll remind you that if i win i will be immediately countersuing. if it's into november, that's another $670.
i'm a shitty employee, and not ashamed about it.
i'm more interested in creating realities where people can create free of coercive influence than i am in contorting myself into some mental gymnastic that sees value in extorting people for profit...
...and i needed a nap.
that's what happens when i'm under pressure: i get sleepy.
it's consistent, actually. predictable. dead line tomorrow? big project due in the morning? i'm probably snoozing somewhere. and, i'm not going to pretend i really care when i wake up, either.
call me depressed, but i don't want your drugs. i want to abolish the conditions that you think spur productivity, because they don't - they just create unnecessary stress.
still no ruling.
i hope the judge doesn't think she's doing me a favour in stretching the ruling out, if she's going to give me 11 days at the end. i haven't done a thing to prepare to move. and, i'm not going to do so until i get the court order - because it's not the landlord that has the legal authority, here, it's the judge.
if she's stalling into november to give me until december 1st, i guess that's a net benefit. but, if she thinks she's just giving me extra days, she's misinterpreting my grasp of the scenario: i'm in this to win, outright.
i'm going to try to get back to filing, but i might fall back asleep. we'll see.
apologies to the guy with the order, but i'm kind of useless at the moment.
and, i'll remind you that if i win i will be immediately countersuing. if it's into november, that's another $670.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)