Thursday, November 24, 2022

TENANT IS SUING THE CITY OF MARKHAM POLICE AND BY LAW OFFICER, PETER NICKOLAIDIS AND HER LANDLORD, FOR THE POLICE ACTIONS, TO AID THE LANDLORD, SHE BELIEVED, IN ATTEMPTING TO EVICT THE TENANT, ILLEGALLY. THE VIDEO POSTED, HAS PROVEN THE FALSE ALLEGATION, OF AN ASSAULT, MADE UP AGAINST THE TENANT, BY THE LANDLORD AND THOSE OTHERS, SHE ALSO BELIEVED, ACTED IN THE CONSPIRACY. THE TENANT ACTUALLY HELPED THE LANDLORD, AS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO PROVIDED.

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE POLICE, TO ASSIST A LANDLORD, IN EVICTING A TENANT, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, OR AN ORDER FOR A WRIT OF POSSESSION. WHICH ONLY THE SHERIFF, CAN ENFORCED. 

TENANT:  THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MY LIFE, BY INSINUATING A LIE, AGAINST THE TENANT, AS A MEANS OF HELPING A LANDLORD, TO ILLEGALLY EVICT THE TENANT, WILL NOT BE IGNORED. THE TENANT HAD WISELY RECORDED, THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, WHEN SHE WAS ASKED FOR HELP, BY THE LANDLORD. THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIDEO, WAS NOT KNOWN BY THE POLICE, WHO LATER ACCUSED THE TENANT, OF ALLEGEDLY, ASSAULTING THE LANDLORD, DURING THAT INCIDENT, UNTIL THE TENANT PRODUCED THE VIDEO TO THE POLICE, WHO THEN DID NOT BOTHER WITH ARRESTING HER, FOR THE ALLEGED INCIDENT. SHE WAS TOLD BY THE POLICE, THAT THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, TOOK PLACE ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH, THE DATE OF THE VIDEO AND OF THE TENANT RECORDING THAT INCIDENT, OF ASSISTING HER LANDLORD, WHO HAD FALLEN FROM HER WHEEL CHAIR, WHICH SHOWS THAT NO ASSAULT TOOK PLACE. 

NOTE:  (For reference to this article, see the video in the previous article, posted below this one).

BUT THE TENANT WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO THE POLICE AND TO ANY LANDLORD, WHO WOULD RESORT TO SUCH A TACTIC, TO EVICT A TENANT, THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD, THE POLICE AND THOSE OTHERS INVOLVED IN THIS CONSPIRACY, WHICH CAUSED THE TENANT HARM, WILL BE RESPONDED TO, WITH A CIVIL ACTION, FOR DAMAGES, BY THE TENANT.  THE INCIDENT, WAS TRAUMATIC AND DISTRESSING, FOR THE TENANT, TO BE ACCUSED OF HARMING SOMEONE, THAT SHE WAS IN FACT HELPING, AT THE TIME AND WHO HAD THANKED HER, FOR HER HELP, AT THE END OF THE VIDEO.  

THERE IS ALSO RACISM INVOLVED, IN THEIR ACTIONS. THAT IS DIRECTED AT TARGETING AND ALSO USING OTHER MEANS, TO ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE INDIVIDUAL. AN ABUSE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND ALSO HUMAN RIGHTS. 

IT IS ALSO ALARMING, THAT THOSE PERSONS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY, WOULD ABUSE THEIR POWER AND OFFICE AND TO TRY TO USE IT, TO TRY TO DESTROY ANYONE, THAT THEY VIEW, AS AN IMPEDIMENT, TO THEIR CORRUPT WAYS,  OF DOING THINGS.  AS I HAVE BEEN DOING, IN EXPOSING THE CITY OF MARKHAM, BY-LAW OFFICIALS, REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION, OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LANDLORD. HOW THEY TOOK UP, A PERSONAL INTEREST, IN THE MATTER AND HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS, TO TRY AND TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF THE OWNER, OR TO STOP THE TENANT, FROM EXPOSING THEIR ACTIONS. BY-LAW OFFICERS, PETER NICKOLAIDIS AND FIRE INSPECTOR, ALEX FREEMAN, ARE AT THE CENTER, OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND BOTH ARE IN FACT, DEFENDANTS ALREADY, IN A CIVIL ACTION, THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE TENANT, AGAINST THEM AND THE CITY OF MARKHAM, ONTARIO. 

THE TENANT BELIEVED, THAT THOSE BY-LAW OFFICERS, ESPECIALLY PETER NICKOLAIDIS, MAY HAVE CONSPIRED, WITH THE LANDLORD AND OTHERS, WITH THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS, OF AN ASSAULT, JUST SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE TENANT TO MOVE OUT SOONER, WHICH WOULD ALSO BENEFIT THE LANDLORD.  

FOR INSTANCE, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, (THE SAME DAY, THAT SHE WAS ACCUSED BY THE POLICE, OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT, AGAINST THE LANDLORD, DATED AT THE TIME OF THE VIDEO, ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH AND FOR WHICH THE POLICE LATER DID NOT PROCEED WITH, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE VIDEO), THE TENANT HAD SPENT SOME TIME, ON THE TELEPHONE, WITH BY-LAW OFFICER, PETER NICKOLAIDIS, OVER HIS ACTIONS, REGARDING THE LANDLORD. FOR INSTANCE, WHAT HE DID, OR OMMITED TO DO, REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION, OF THE LANDLORD'S PROPERTY. HE ALLEGES, THAT HE HAD PROVIDED THE COURT WITH DOCUMENTS, IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE LANDLORD, REGARDING THE VIOLATIONS, OF THE OWNER, PUI YI WONG, AKA FANNY WONG, WITH THE CROWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, YET NO RECORD OF THIS COULD BE FOUND WITH THE COURT.  UNLIKE THE COURT'S RECORD, OF THE CITY OF MARKHAM FIRE SERVICES, PROSECUTION OF THE LANDLORD, FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER THE ONTARIO FIRE CODE. WHICH IS COMING UP FOR A HEARING, ON DECEMBER 19TH, AT 9.A.M. AT THE COURTHOUSE.

THE TENANT BELIEVED, THAT PETER NICKOLAIDIS, WAS INVOLVED IN THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS, MADE AGAINST HER, BY THE LANDLORD, AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, AGAINST THE TENANT.  PETER NIKOLAIDIS, WAS ALSO NOT AWARE OF THE VIDEO'S EXISTENCE, EITHER. 

AND AS THE TENANT HAD MADE MENTIONED TO THE POLICE, THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS INVOLVED, WITH REGARDS TO THE LANDLORD, WHEN IT COMES TO EVICTING A TENANT.  AND THAT SHE MUST ALSO FOLLOW THAT LEGAL PROCESS.



VIDEO PROVING THE FALSE ACCUSATION OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT, BY LANDLORD, WHICH THE POLICE TRIED TO USE, TO EVICT THE TENANT. THE VIDEO POSTED, SHOWS OTHERWISE.

Monday, November 14, 2022

YORK REGIONAL POLICE HARASSMENT. ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE, WITHOUT A WARRANT. THE POLICE CARS THAT ARE INVOLVED, LICENSE PLATES # CHRM 414 AND CJMN 266.

 THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE, HAS DECIDED TO CARRY OUT ITS HARASSMENT, BY ITS ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE OF ME, WITHOUT A WARRANT. 



 TWO POLICE VANS AND A PLAIN CAR, WAS PARKED AT THE ROUTE THAT I USUSALLY TAKE, CARRYING OUT THE ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE OF ME. 

ONE OF THE YORK POLICE VEHICLE, LICENSE PLATE NUMBER IS CHRM 414 AND THE OTHER IS CJMN 266.  BOTH VEHICLES DROVE OFF, IMMEDIATELY, WHICH SUGGESTED THAT THE ACTIVITY, THAT THEY WERE CARRYING OUT, WAS ILLEGAL.

THE POLICE REQUIRES A WARRANT, FROM THE COURT, TO CARRY OUT THE SURVEILLANCE, OF AN INDIVIDUAL. AND MUST HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO DO SO. IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS WARRANT, THEY ARE VIOLATING SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND ARE LIABLE.

AS SOON AS I BEGAN TO RECORD THEIR ACTIVITY, THEY DROVE OFF.  NOW, I HAVE A LANDLORD, WHO THEY SEEM TO BE WORKING WITH THE POLICE, AND WHO WHO WANTS TO EVICT ME, ILLEGALLY.  AND AS WE CAN SEE FROM THE CASE OF CARR VS THE OTTAWA POLICE, AS WELL AS THE LAW ITSELF, THE POLICE IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE ASSISTING A LANDLORD, TO EVICT ANY RENT PAYING TENANT. THE JUDGE, SYLVIA CORTHORN, RULED THAT THE VICTIM, "HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE AT THE HOME, AS A RENT PAYOR".  

MY MATTER IS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH DEALS WITH ALL OTHER  TENANCIES, THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE RTA, AND INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COURT, TO OBTAIN A WRIT OF POSSESSION, THIS WOMAN IS TRYING TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO EVICT ME. SHE HAS ONLY TURNED THE HEAT ON, SINCE NOVEMBER 1ST AND SHE HAS TURNED THE WATER OFF, FOR MONTHS NOW, IN THE KITCHEN AND AND HAS ALSO TURNED THE WATER OFF IN THE BATHRROM. WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT USE THE TOILET. 

TWO WEEKS AGO, SHE CONTACTED THE POLICE AND TOLD THEM THAT I HAD STUFFED A PLASTIC BAG DOWN THE TOILET AND HAD BLOCKED UP HER TOILET. BUT HERE IS WHAT SHE ALSO SAID TO THE POLICE, "THAT SHE WAS NOT AT HOME AT THE TIME, BUT IT MUST BE ME, BECAUSE I WAS HOME ALL DAY".  NOW SHE IS SAYING THAT SOMEONE SAW ME FLUSHED THE PLASTIC BAG, DOWN THE TOILET, WHICH IS HEARSAY. AND WHO THE HELL, AS A STRANGER, WOULD BE INVITED INSIDE A BATHROOM, WHEN YOU ARE USING IT?. BOTH LIES ON HER PART. SHE ALSO CHANGED THE LOCK ON THE DOOR AND DID NOT GIVE ME THE REPLACEMENT KEYS, WHERE I HAD TO BE CALLING THE POLICE TO ASSIST ME, IN GETTING BACK INSIDE MY HOME.  

THE LANDLORDS, PUI YI WONG AKA FANNY WONG AND SUET WAN WONG, AKA KEN WONG, HAS BEEN OPERATING THEIR PROPERTY ILLEGALLY FOR 13 YEARS. AND THEY DID WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO THE TENANTS. LAST WEEK, WHEN THE GARBAGE TRUCK DID NOT TAKE UP THE GARBAGE, SHE THREATENED TO DUMP IT IN MY RENTAL UNIT. SHE IS ALSO FACING A CIVIL ACTION BY ME, FOR DAMAGES. ALONG WITH SOME CORRUPT CITY OF MARKHAM, OFFICIALS. ONCE OF WHOM, A FIRE INSPECTOR, BY THE NAME OF ALEX FREEMAN,  RECENTLY MAKE AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (AGAIN) AND ORDERE HER TO REMOVED THE BEDS FROM ALL OF THE ROOMS, THAT SHE HAD TOLD THE BY-LAW OFFICERS, WERE EMPTY AND THAT THE TENANTS HAD MOVED OUT.  THE INSPECTORS WANTED PROOF OF THIS AND ORDERED HER TO REMOVED THE LOCKS ON THE DOORS FROM THOSE ROOMS, (TWO ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND ONE ON THE MAIN FLOOR), AS WELL AS THE BEDS, IN THOSE ROOMS. BUT SHE HAS CONTINUED TO IGNORE THE ORDER AND HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH IT. ONE OF THE TENANTS, A MALE, WHOSE ROOM WAS ORDERED TO BE CLOSED DOWN PERMANENTLY, HAS CONTINUED TO LIVE THERE, DESPITE THE ORDER MADE AGAINST HIM.  THE SAD THING IS THAT THOSE SAME OFFICIALS ARE AWARE THAT SHE HAS VIOLATED THE ORDER AND HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS THE CORRUPTION THAT IS INVOLVED.  ONLY TWO TENANTS WERE ALLOWED TO STAY AT THE BUILDING AS RENTERS, DURING THE INSPECTION. MYSELF AND ANOTHER TENANT NAME MICHELLE, AS BOTH OF OUR RENTAL UNITS WERE OCCUPIED AND LIVED IN, WERE ALLOWED TO STAY, WHILE ALL OF THE OTHERS TENANTS HAD TO GO. THE ORDER WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BY KATHY ROACH, A BUILDING INSPECTOR.  I WAS HOME AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, SO I KNOW WHAT WAS SAID AND  DONE, BY THE BYLAW OFFICERS. IT ALL FELL OF DEAF EARS, AS FAR AS THE LANDLORDS, WERE CONCERNED. THEY HAVE NEVER COMPLIED WITH THAT ORDER.

 NOW THE LANDLORDS ARE FACING SEVERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT,  BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION, MONG OTHERS. 


HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, REGARDING A LANDLORD'S SELF HELP METHOD, OF EVICTING A TENANT AND HOW THE COURT ACTUALLY VIEWS IT.

53.  If the solicitor counselled or countenanced these clearly illegal acts of his clients his own conduct was outrageous, and well below the standard which the court is entitled to expect from any solicitor licenced to practice as such in Ontario. The policy against self-help - against the recovery of possession of residential premises except under the authority of a writ of possession - is too well established to allow for an exculpatory plea of ignorance of the law from a solicitor purporting to act in this area of the law. The provision prohibiting the changing of locks is very clear - and may be seen as part of the larger policy against self-help. I am convinced that instances of self-help with respect to residential tenancies have a significant potential for begetting violence. A majority of the persons in Metropolitan Toronto live in rented accommodation. The public interest in avoiding self-help remedies is obvious and the public policy is clearly reflected in the legislation. It is not tolerable that solicitors, or other representatives of landlords or tenants, whether through ignorance or defiance, countenance, counsel or assist with illegal activities such as those carried out in this case by Diane and Steve Divitcos.

ROXANNE PARIS, A MANAGER, IN THE URGENT CIVIL INTAKE OFFICE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, TO BE FACE A CHARGE, OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION, AND BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. IN DELIBERATELY, BLOCKING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN THE COURT.

AFTER FILING MY URGENT MOTION, AT THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WENT DIRECTLY, TO THE CIVIL URGENT MO...