- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
Sorry, in what world can a witness be in a [kangaroo] court room before they're called?
(I know, it answers itself.)
Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
Sorry, in what world can a witness be in a [kangaroo] court room before they're called?
(I know, it answers itself.)
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2017
I wanted to practice caricatures and figured I'd use one of the most grotesque people I know of.
I apologize for any blindness caused.
This is by far the worst thing I've ever drawn.
I apologize for any blindness caused.
This is by far the worst thing I've ever drawn.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2014
Canadian law is for the most part closer alike to U.S. law then it is different, as both are fundementally based on British Common Law.
Unfortunately our charter rights can be revoked with a "good enough" reason. That's the main difference, whereas an amendment to the U.S. constitution or even an order to ignore it takes major political and public clout.
We're not. It is.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
The normies have truly descended upon this cow.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
Thanks. Never heard of a witness being allowed to sit through a case before being called to give witness 'testimony'. I appreciate it's not a high court case or the likes but it doesn't make sense to me. smh.
Mind-boggling thought that the accuser and his 'witness' can tailor their case depending on how they feel things are going down.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
Mods, can we get this picture put in the original post?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
I don't think Shepherd was there. But I'll bet that Meghan Murphy and Lindsay Shepherd are the ones he wanted banned. He gloats about getting them booted from twitter, but you know he'd be terrified to encounter them in real life. He's also got delusions of self-importance, and thinks there's a chance they'll actually show up.
Matthew Harks is the most recent example I can think of. No surgery, no hormones.
View attachment 844756
View attachment 844751
Edit to add: Harks was in the news recently when they tried to release him to a women's halfway house, and the mayor of Brampton told the feds they didn't want him in their city. They found a technicality to get him back to jail. Away from the citizens of Brampton, but back to harassing the women at Grand Valley.
Convicted pedophile back in custody after federal government revokes supervision order
Police said Madilyn Harks, 36, was arrested Friday after Correctional Services Canada (CSC) issued a warrant of suspension to her long-term supervision order.globalnews.ca
Obviously this is fucked up, but wtf do the female inmates expect, if their answer to a violent rapist strolling around in their jail is to sit in a circle and have a “committee meeting”.
Shit, back in the day when feminists weren’t such a joke, they would have solved the problem without dreaming about being invited to tea with the warden.
A handful of the dykiest dykes would have gotten together in order to pay Harks a visit and have a conversation in the only language that creatures like him understand.
A follow up visit while he’s recuperating in the medical wing would pretty much guarantee a sudden detransition and transfer out of there.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
Mama Yaniv seems to believe that she knows who the "gang" are and they're being watched! Ooooo.... so scared of the scoot scoot and their seizure sniffing mom.
{edit to insert]
{edit to insert]
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2017
may I use this as my avi?
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2017
Hell yeah, go for it!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
Is Miriam a two-legged seizure dog, or is she prompting Johnny to seize on command?
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2018
While I'll agree, @wabbits, that this clearly states that either party need not appear, there's nothing indicating how such an absence is viewed in light of any evidence presented without the absent party having the chance to question or refute it. In short, their presence may not be required, but I don't think it helps them to be absent -- especially in this specific case where JY has a familiar relationship with the presiding member who has already indicated JY can have more leeway than they would get had a respondent or lawyer appeared to answer the claim.
I'd love to know doing what. Last I knew, JY's current daytime work of serial tweeting, scooter riding, and screeching at detractors and minorities doesn't pay three figures unless those three figures amount to $1.00 per day.
JY hasn't had to prove much of anything so far. He abruptly demanded to add SG's husband as a respondent without reason and that got granted. Also, he asked for the damage figure to be doubled from around $7500 to $15000 mid-hearing and got that granted without having to offer a reason.
Previous statement notwithstanding, I'd love to know who in their right mind would pay JY for consulting services when all their waking hours presently appear to be consumed by litigation, health issues, and tilting at windmills while dealing with the paranoia that their worst enemies are tormenting them with their presence in the tribunal hearing room. When does JY have the time to do work that generates income?
In a real court, this would be seen as the sign of a vexatious litigant or one filing lawsuits in bad faith (or whatever legal term applies). Sadly, I don't think the BCHRT cares since the body appears to have no mechanism in place to prevent vexatious or other frivolous complaints.
What I do wonder about is how tribunal members are selected to hear cases. Do they get to pick and choose the cases, or is there a process that randomly assigns a member to a case? I'd love to see JY argue a case before someone not quite as accommodating as Member Cousineau who might still be sympathetic but with no tolerance for the in-hearing shenanigans JY and MY appear to be getting away with in these cases heard by Member Cousineau.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2017
most wonderful - thanks!
edit-tomorrow when I am not on my phone. it won't let me even after resizing
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
At first, when I read about this woman interrupting the proceedings because her dear boy “was killing himself” I thought she was just taking the Jewish Mother stereotype too seriously.
But this is clearly beyond that. The woman sounds absolutely psychotic, and her relationship with Jonathan is probably weapons grade-toxic.
(I shudder to think of what a few hours of Yaniv Jr. & Sr. with a psychoanalyst would reveal.)
Hopefully somebody will devote a couple of hours to digging a little deeper into Miriam Yaniv, I can practically hear the skeletons rattling.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2018
This was worth waiting for and I ain't thumbnailing it:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
The price of being a 'celeb'. Go swivel momma, jonny's hitting the big time.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
"Both" omfg not this shit again. Miriam, we have covered that your son has a penis and no vagina. Real "hermaphrodites" (people with fully functioning male and female sex organs) don't exist.
Also, someone tell me why she's allowed to testify after being in the room all day and, you know, being completely insane...
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2017
In 2010, a Miriam Yaniv posted on a mitochondrial disorder forum (this is a disorder that is highly associated with Munchies). Bet it's the same one.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
Miriam just claimed Jonny got his first "period" when he was 13 or 14... I'm screaming inside these people are so full of SHIT.