Killing Ontario » Complaint re Melchers Vexatious Conduct the end

Complaint re Melchers Vexatious Conduct (followup)

The following is the follow-up to the initial complaint about Mr Melchers' conduct, including addressing of the fact that he is fully equipped to counsel his client, Medallion Corporation on how best to wage a proper and effective tactical nuclear war against tenants via vexatious litigation.

I've made certain to carbon-copy his associate Joe Hoffer, because as the Ontario Law Society Chair (so alleged according to Cohen Highley LLP) he's probably in the best position to tell his associate, the guy across the hall, not to breach protocol by enabling their client to go after this tenant with vexatious litigation utilizing fraudulent testimony, right?

Or would that be a Conflict of Interest, if Mr Hoffer were to shout across the hall (keeping appropriate social distance, and having a dry mouth so there is a minimum of droplet transmission) to his friend and colleague Mr Melcher that "hey.. go easy on the gimp, it's not good for our litigation insurance".

This Respondent is now getting downright bug-eyed, because now I know why Medallion Corporation retained Cohen Highley LLP. To squash any uppity tenant that they want to quietly dispose of without having to run the risk of criminal charges.
Boom... it all makes sense, now. In a weirdly depressing way. All that I have left is my rusty old Low Orbit Ion Cannon (it was military surplus, retired when they established 45's Space Force), it seems. I might as well pack my bags.


 

Dear Mr Melchers,

I take the allegations of Ms Scheriff to heart, for these are allegations of an indictable offence (well actually, Assault is a hybrid offence and Crown would almost definitely proceed summarily if it were to ever be taken to trial; which it would not) but this brings one about to the question of whether Ms Scherf would be willing to perjure herself at an eviction hearing... Would she?

Because in all honesty, I was mystified by her confabulatory allegation that I had gone up to my apartment, and "..after 15 minutes [I] returned again to the office.. while holding a device with a light that [I] flashed in Bibi's face to try and show how annoying the light is to [me]. Then on the way out [I] mentioned that [your client] shouldn't put up that light again."

Now to provide you some applicable context, over ten years ago I read a neat little book called "Detecting Malingering And Deception: Forensic Distortion Analysis (2nd Ed.)" cover-to-cover.. several times. I recently acquired the 3rd Ed. and am working on it in my spare time.. it's 500+ pages, and I'm rather preoccupied with countering your client's vexatious quasi-litigation... But my point in bringing this up was not an idle "flex" like so many people, but rather I am trying to gently let you know that I'm familiar with the prevalence of distortional testimony, either by memory failure or by the provision and utility of knowingly fraudulent testimony. I also understand that people can have many other reasons for inaccurate testimony, and I sympathize with such witnesses —to a degree.

Now in my discussion with other tenants regarding Medallion Corporation's predilection to serving N5 notices rather than sitting down and talking things through. I postulated the reasoning for this in my email yesterday, so I will not bring it up again.. unlike your client, I will not rehash information.
In reviewing Ms Scheriff's testimony, it is apparent that there is a distinct difference between our two accounts. Which leads me to wonder: Do you have audio and video footage to corroborate her version of events, or do you simply have the testimony of Medallion Corporation's agents to "independently" corroborate her version of events?

If this matter proceeds to trial before the LTB, or for some strange reason winds up in the HRT, can you please inform me what the penalty is for a witness providing fraudulent testimony? Because I quite honestly, have no idea. Can Mr Hoffer please enlighten me? And, what is the penalty for their legal counsel if they were to knowingly utilize fraudulent testimony?
Now, I'm not really an asshole, so what your client has done is putting me in a rather difficult area. Either be a nice simpleton and get evicted, or go all zero-sum and look like a total fucking jackass. You see the quandary, no?

I have been aware of, and attempted to properly inform Medallion Corporation (specifically the Sherbourne Place complex located at 565, 561, 555, 545 Sherbourne St, in Toronto, Ontario) that they are encouraging a culture of fear and loathing towards residents who are unable to wear, or unwilling to don a mask or face covering for ideological, religious, or health reasons. I have even gone so far as to print the publicly available at The REAL Mask Law, eh? posters and affix them in the common areas, in my effort to allow Medallion Corporation to remediate its ignorance of the law.
https://masklaw.ca/graphics/2020/11/03/mask-law-exemptions-poster
But you know what they say, right? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so each and every poster I have put up has been ripped down and your client, Medallion Corporation has remained ignorant of the law. I've even sent them email exploring the fact that they are acting in contravention of the law, but it seems their spam filter automatically flags my email as "Junk" and immediately deletes it. Or something.

So either your client evicts my wife and I using knowingly fraudulent testimony in which case I struggle to explore the criminality and reprehensibility of your vexatious quasi-litigation from the streets, or I walk away and lose everything. Or.. we come to an agreement such like that which I previously explored in my email dated 2020Oct30 at 0401EDT. I have attached a PDF copy hereto (202010300401EDT-Your-Client-Was-Warned.pdf) just in case your client has not been totally forthcoming with you.
Namely that your client acknowledge the Mandatory Mask Law exemptions and demonstrate that they are in FULL and TOTAL support of tenants who choose to wear masks, and also of tenants who choose not to wear a mask, and for them to VOLUNTARILY elect not continue to violate the rights of persons claiming exemption from the Mandator Mask Law and Bylaws.

It's actually, the law now. Your client is required to observe the law, both fully and completely, but also preferably in competence. I have been on the defence because your client, Medallion Corporation, has been acting with deliberate negligence of the applicable laws and bylaws, and I have restricted myself to non-zero solutions. This has to come to an end, but I'd prefer it to end in a mutually beneficial fashion. I don't want your client to get fined up to $10,000,000 (kinda stupid that the province reiterated the maximum civil damages/award in Ontario Superior Court) or the employees to be fined up to 100,000 just for deliberate failing to abide by the governing legislation, namely the Reopening Ontario Act. It would be very nice if you and your client chose to abide by your respective rules for a change, although I doubt those penalties have any teeth when it comes to Medallion Corporation, right?

And you, I'm sure your license to practice is perfectly safe due to knowingly employing (utilizing) fraudulent testimony in a Social Justice Tribunal.  I'm not a vexatious litigant, and I don't want to hit you or your client for punitive damages. Would you PLEASE play nice, and counsel your client to do the same?

--
#######################################
#######################################
#######################################

 

CC:

  • Mask Law Blog (masklaw.ca)
  • Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc
  • Denis Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association
  • Rob Roberts, National Post
  • Legal Intervention Requests, Ontario Human Rights Commission
  • Ontario Law Society, Complaints & Compliance
  • Ontario Bar Association, Executive Director & General Counsel, Elizabeth A. Hall
  • Joe Hoffer, Cohen Highley LLP, Lawyers

 


PS:

  • I'm asking nicely, guys.

 


Attachments:

  • 202010300401EDT-Your-Client-Was-Warned.pdf

Comments

Anonymous (not verified), Sat, 12/19/2020 - 05:27
Love it.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.