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.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
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.
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.
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 31st
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 1st 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 1st 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 10th 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 11th 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...
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 6, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)