Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification

844630


What does whether or not JT is Asian have to do with anything, and does JY realize how racist he sounds by bringing it up?
 

This is probably the most disgusting shit Johnny Boy has pulled yet. Straight up blackmailing a woman for not wanting to provide service on his genitals. Banking on her not knowing her rights in Canada and not being able to defend herself in a tribunal hearing because she's foreign.

Christ that's abhorrent.
 
Reimagining a JY complaint:

"Hello, I'm responding to your ad for painting."
"Sure, what do you need done."
"A portrait."
"I only paint walls. Houses, sheds, garage, barn...."
"I need painting though."
"I'm available 9 to 5. You got some walls that need painting? Where are you at anyways?"
"Langley."
"You're aware I'm up in 100 Mile House aren't you? I only paint houses in 100 Mile House."
"I need you to paint this portrait." (Sends file beautifullady.jpg)
"That's literally a photo of naked bearded man with his dick and balls out."
"THAT'S TRANSPHOBIC DISCRIMINATION AND IM SUEING YOU."

Cousineau: "This sounds like a reasonable case to proceed with."
 
This is probably the most disgusting shit Johnny Boy has pulled yet. Straight up blackmailing a woman for not wanting to provide service on his genitals. Banking on her not knowing her rights in Canada and not being able to defend herself in a tribunal hearing because she's foreign.

Christ that's abhorrent.

Agreed. Every farmer is allowed to be mad about this. Like really mad. Working women shouldn’t have to be subjected to this absolute fucking scumbag but... Canada.
 
Well holy shit. Direct threats right in front of members.

Wow! Just when I thought JY was behaving similar to the old cow Len Shaner in today's hearing when requesting people be banned; showing off the graffiti sticker to the tribunal; and demanding a half million Canadian dollars in damages, MY decides to one-up her child in deciding to ignore prior admonishments about electronic transmissions and threatening goinglikeelsie after the latter reports the former's prohibited conduct to Member Cousineau. As much as Cousineau's impartiality has been questioned here, I optimistically hope she has the integrity to issue harsher sanctions against MY for her willful defiance of the prohibition against electronic transmissions and the subsequent threat against goinglikeelsie.

The one thing that concerns me so far in the tweet chain about this case is that JT, today's respondent, failed to appear if I'm reading it correctly. If JT did in fact no-show, is it likely the tribunal will automatically rule against her, or is the complainant -- JY in this case -- still required to establish an actionable offense first?

It would be a real shame if JT's limited English skills was the reason for her no-show and a possible ruling against her. :heart-empty:
 
EDIT: Got ninjad over a hour.
Tim Pool caught up with Lindsay Shepherd getting banned from twitter for insulting a troon, in particular.. JY

Well, Johnny gonna get more attention, probably not one he'd expected.
It will take a real exceptional kangaroo court not to have shit blown into his face now.
I'm disappointed Beanie Boy used Lindsay getting banned from twitter, to bitch about Talcum X. We get it, he's gay and twitter is ran by faggots but it would of been nice if talked about how a racist, child harassing troon is targeting Sikh owned businesses through the BCHTR.
 
Lol. This Devyn cunt is letting that line of questioning go on because:

a) She's letting Jon dig a deeper hole for himself.
or
b) She arbitrarily puts gender ID above race.

🤔🌈
Trannies are the hot new issue for the left and Yaniv can pull the 6 GORILLIAN card. Sorry women and darkies, there is a new head on the totem pole of oppression.
 
The one thing that concerns me so far in the tweet chain about this case is that JT, today's respondent, failed to appear if I'm reading it correctly. If JT did in fact no-show, is it likely the tribunal will automatically rule against her, or is the complainant -- JY in this case -- still required to establish an actionable offense first?

It seemed from the way Goinglikeelsie set it up, JT is allowed as a respondent to decline to appear at the hearing so there's no automatic ruling against her. The rules are online and seem (to me) to imply that not appearing does not make an adverse judgment automatic. How's this read to you?

Rule 32 - Hearings

If participant does not appear


(1) If the member hearing the complaint is satisfied that a participant received notice of the hearing, the member may proceed in the participant's absence.

Edit: Yaniv thinks he gets cookies because JT did not appear:
Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 8.46.03 PM.png

Edit 2: Ah-ha! Respondents aren't required to participate.
Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 8.50.13 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Back