I'm getting MADDR about your restriction on my freedom of conscience... » TSL-21777-21-RV - February 17, 2022 — STANDARD OF REVIEW (CORRECTED)
 
Registry

TSL-21777-21-RV - February 17, 2022 — STANDARD OF REVIEW (CORRECTED)

By Chad, 17 February, 2022

 

The following is a direct response and criticism of the fact that the moronic presiding member of the LTB "Douglas Wilkins." How on earth can any competent discerning mind try to pinion an argument around a single word? Context matters, and his arguments [a]re not supported by the context.

--
Chad, by Covfefe Bakery + Café
Internet Security, Operations and Intelligence
    Email:    chad@openontario.org
    Tel:        +1 716-608-3531


PS: I'm not calling the presiding member a doofus, even though his actions appear either deliberate negligent, or bloody retarded. I am, however, questioning his competence to render accurate opinions that take into account the entirety of the information at hand. So yeah, I question his digit span.

ENCLOSURE:

On 20220217, at 1411EST, Chad W. Testes <chad@openontario.org> wrote:

Dear Wilkins,

  • In you order just issued you claim that I "..only indicated that he was 'somewhat' affected by the separation from his wife, which weighs against a finding of exceptional circumstances. In circumstances where none of the above-cited decisions address the situation of a second request more than 2-months later in relation to the same death in the family it cannot be said that the decision to deny the second request to reschedule is inconsistent with these decisions."
  • (Medallion vs Chad and Stacy, TSL-21777-21-RV, Para 21)

The fuller context was "Stacy has arranged alternate travel (with another carrier) on Sep04 to help her family in need. Our family in Victoria, BC has since required additional assistance, impairing my ability to function competently. In short I'm unable to accompany my wife to assist her, so I'm consequently somewhat of an emotional mess. :("

You took it out of context, my friend. You know that any reasonable counsel would have a field day with this, right? You took ONE WORD and interpreted it to be charged inversely of what the context conveys. That's really shoddy work, even for you. I'll just assume that you're so distraught by the vexatious actions of Medallion Corporation that you erred in one of the basic tenets of argumentation. Context matters.

Given that you premised your whole decision around the emotional quanta of tense, direction, charge of a single word, without regard to the context for support. You didn't contextualize it, because the context does NOT support your disposition, but rather when taken in context, my position of emotional distress is confirmed.

  • "There is not arguable merit to either of these claims because these are the issues the Tenants ought to have raised at the scheduled hearing in support of a request to adjourn the proceeding."
  • (Medallion vs Chad and Stacy, TSL-21777-21-RV, Para 22)

Which I would have done, if the Order was served within a reasonable time of it having been rendered on Feb03, but rather the Board chose to serve it on the tenants Feb09 (6-days) for execution Feb20 (11-calendar-days,  or 7-business-days) and thus have been rushing around seeking assistance with the filing of an Urgent Judicial Review.

Let that sink in. Not only are we being EVICTED because of our conscience, but also being EXTORTED over $10,000 for the crime of wrongthink and wrongspek. That should scare you all, as it is setting a dangerous legal precedent in Ontario.
(Sherbourne Die Stätte » Endorsed Eviction Order)

Unreasonableness is the last resort of a vexatious specialist in dealing with tenants. Isn't that what you said, Melchers?

So yeah, now that my wife is back home and only bursting into tears at the sorrowful mention of our mother a couple times a day, I can more competently take Medallion and their gung-ho boor lawyer Melchers to the cleaners. You try to charge me and my wife $10,681.82 for EXPRESSING OUR OPINION REGARDING THE COVID 19 P[L]ANDEMIC AND THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON VACCINATIONS AND MASKS?

You further categorize it as Protected Expression by representing our actions as "..preaching to them about his own opinion about vaccinations. The Tenant (CWT) continued to speak inappropriately to other tenants regarding their personal beliefs of the COVID pandemic."

You're punishing my wife and I because I refuse to sit down and shut up as our rights are violated? This is the quintessential definition of a juridical rape, and you know it. I will not be forced to subjugate myself to legal, moral, or physical rape just because you get off on screwing with a proud member of the 'fringe minority'.

--
Chad, by Covfefe Bakery + Café
Internet Security, Operations and Intelligence
    Email:    chad@openontario.org
    Tel:        +1 716-608-3531

  • CC:
  • Marija Pavic, Lead Counsel for Medallion Properties Eviction Squad,
  • Mark Melchers, Vexatious Litigation Specialist for Cohen Highley LLP,
  • Rob Roberts, Editor in Chief for National Post,
  • Denis Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association,
  • Marshall Swadron, Swadron Associates,
  • Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre,
  • Amir & Natasha, Formative LLP,
  • Mary J. Scharf, MJS Legal Services

Comments