A History of Frivolous Filings and Heavy Drug Use
TODAY'S part will be reasonably short. We have two new leaks (EPO and FSF) and will therefore prioritise covering these rather than some slandering militants who abuse processes and phone up people's employers.
Based on a quick lookup (public records [1, 2, 3], not doxing by any stretch of imagination), these militants have a long history of abusing processes, both with a female name and a male name, typically asserting "transphobia" to pressure the system into playing along. There are at least 6 filings, probably even more, targeting anyone including the police. The concept of "cheap revenge" isn't seen kindly by those who are taken for a ride, but they don't want to seem "intolerant".
The peculiar thing is, when all this backfires (it's a waste of resources; see Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Does Not Wish to Become an Instrument of Cost-Free Harassment or 'Cheap Revenge', It Says "Justice is Not Free. Quite the Contrary. Justice is Expensive.") the militants admit being messed up in the head and actually stoned.
As it turns out, this one militant went after some others using the HRTO. They were disinclined to help the militant when the militant started demanding that they take action against the police. And the Solicitor-General, which I'm assuming means State's Attorney, was mentioned as follows:
[3] For the purposes of a summary hearing, the applicant’s version of events is assumed to be true. The applicant alleges that, on several occasions where she had interactions with police officers, that despite conveying that she identified as female, one or more of the officers reacted negatively, still referred to her as male in their written reports, and otherwise failed to acknowledge or recognize her gender identity. For example, in one incident she alleges that an officer had a “sour look” on his face after learning the applicant was transgendered."[4] The respondent disputes the applicant’s version of events. For example, it claims that the applicant had not in fact corrected the officers when they referred to her by her previous name, that she provided her driver’s licence with what was, at the time, her legal gender, and that the references in the officer’s notes were reflecting the applicant’s legal name, or were references to the names used to refer to her by others, including family members. In general, it denies that the applicant was treated in any way that could be found to be discriminatory or unprofessional.
Frivolous filing sometimes results in broadcasting one's own stupidity.
This is all in the public record, including this:
Here is the text:
[13] In the reasons provided by the applicant as to why the Tribunal should permit the cancellation of the Request to Withdraw. The applicant submits: I no longer wish to withdraw 2017-29111-1. I was suffering from cannabis psychosis and this caused an extreme amount of paranoia. I thought that the OPP were stalking me because of what Jason Tereszko had said during out OLRB hearing. That is why I requested to withdraw.[...]
[15] The only submission in support of the reconsideration of the withdrawn Application is that the applicant was “suffering from cannabis psychosis and this caused an extreme amount of paranoia”. The applicant provided no medical evidence to support this assertion that they lacked capacity to withdraw the Application at the time.
So the militant was psychotic due to copious amounts of marijuana. And was paranoid that the Ontario police were out to get him/her. █