What follows is a copy of the original post, posted on August 17, 2019.
I spoke to two officers, McClelland and Lawther, about the circus. The circus goes on, it seems. Apparently, I don’t fit the “victim profile” since I haven’t moved, and don’t run from these people.
It also seems the Cora Williams act has rejoined the circus, or else Ron Stamper has her convinced I’m a pedophile. Apparently, she complained to the cops that I was filming her kids.
However, after the circus on September 3, 2017 I was always careful to keep kids out of it. And the loony crew are (usually) well behaved around kids (or at least they hide their behavior from the children). So the cameras aren’t recording when the kids are around. (The body-cam can be started at the touch of a button. The loony crew seems to think it runs 24/7. Until recently, the cameras weren’t even turned on until after an encounter had started. That gave the loony crew too much leeway to lie about what happened before the camera was turned on. When there are kids around the camera is off, but on my belt.)
It’s actually a bit funny that Ron Stamper thinks I’m a pedophile. My tastes run in the opposite direction. So if the cops want to check out my extensive collection of granny porn, they’re more than welcome. It’s a lot less funny that he’s convinced others.
And, I was cautioned about filming the interior of other tenants units, even by chance. That can be construed as Criminal Mischief.
I already knew that, which is why the body cam points to the ground in front of me rather than showing a full frontal view (the belt clip for the camera is adjustable to hold the camera pointed wherever you like). The camera can be adjusted to point forward quickly if needed.
It’s also a bit disingenuous for Richard Pollington in particular to complain about having the interior of his unit filmed (if he has, this time. This might be Ron Stamper’s “you’re a peeping tom” shtick being recycled, or it might be Cora Williams recycling her claims I photographed her through her windows. Come to think of it, maybe Ron Stamper got the idea from Cora. Who knows?). As far as I can recall, the only times anyone in this circus has ever filmed the interior of someone else’s apartment was on December 6, 2019 and December 8, 2019. Richard Pollington was standing in the hallway filming me through the open door of my unit. I objected, he continued. Then he came back later that day and did the same thing.
Spent the night at the apartment. No circus, so no videos to post.
{end of original post}
I called police non-emergency number and tried to get an idea when a Hamilton cop might be available to take my complaint. Rather than have them show up at the apartment and start bullying Marie, I went to Central Police Station on King William. I brought along a summary of recent events, with the link to the blog (for context, if they wanted it). That summary is here: (Doc 351). The Occurrence Details Report, McClellan’s Witness statement, and a copy of his notes are here: (Doc 350). A copy of the General Report is here (Doc 365). The transcription of McLellan’s Notes are here: (Doc 352). As usual, HPS got a lot of the details wrong, and there were some omissions from the report (specifically, my complaints about the increasing homophobic commentary and my concerns about the effect the harassment was having on my roomate). My intention was to make a complaint of criminal harassment and criminal mischief against Richard Pollington and Ron Stamper, and multiple breaches of recognizance/probation, criminal mischief and uttering threats by Jeremy Stamper. After identifying myself to a uniformed officer at the desk, I met with two cops, PC Michael McLellan (Badge #1203) and PC Robert Lawther (Badge #1250). Neither of them informed me that I was the subject of their investigation; they let me think I was the complainant. Can’t hold that against them. I had my body cam with me, but wasn’t certain it was legal to run it inside the station. I carried it in my hand, along with some papers. When Lawther left to copy the pages I’d brought along, McLellan told me to turn off the camera in my hand. I answered truthfully that it wasn’t on.
Neither cop seemed the slightest bit interested in my complaint. McClellan would occasionally interrupt, talking over me, or saying “that isn’t a crime” to things I wasn’t alleging were a crime, but were background. He was utterly uninterested in any history, and was openly contemptuous when I described their conduct as bullying. He spent a lot of time minimizing their bullying behavior (and this part of the conversation revealed some interesting biases. McClellan is apparently of the belief that a landlord has the right to behave however he chooses in a tenant’s home). That got worse when I tried to explain the effect of John’s bullying on Marie. When I told him Marie had been diagnosed with PTSD McLellan snorted and said “There’s no such thing”. (That’s a common belief in this society. A cop should know better). So, I offered to show him videos of our landlord’s crew in action. McLellan wasn’t interested at first, but agreed to see them. Lawther was engaged in the conversation at this point.
I wasn’t able to get a cell signal inside, so the three of us moved outside, into the forecourt of 155 King William. At this point, both Lawther and Mclellan spoke briefly to other officers who were arriving or leaving the station. Lawther became increasingly disengaged from the conversation. He was clearly bored with the matter.
I showed McClellan the first video (Vid 85), after giving him context (both verbally and in the written summary). I did tell him that I had repeatedly asked Ron (and the rest of them) not to communicate with me at this point, and that police had cautioned Ron, Christina and Richard against communicating with me (which I believed to be true at the time).
McClellan wasn’t interested. When I pointed out that this was also an example of besetting, he asked me what I meant. I told him that the Stampers (and their guests) would approach me as a group at the building, and would surround me making comments or having conversations meant to be overheard (and that were antagonistic and provocative. Mostly conversations about what happens to “rats in the building”). I also told him that their habit of confronting me as a group had made me fearful of approaching the building when one or more of them were outside. McLellan wasn’t interested. He said that the problem was my camera.
When I showed him the second two videos, Vid 83 & Vid 84, McClellan wasn’t interested in Pollington’s taunts, or his invitation to be slapped. He also insisted that I had initiated communication, and would not listen when I tried to tell him that I had asked “Can I help you, Pollington?” in response to Richard following me with a camera. In the Occurrence Details Report (Doc 350) McClellan reports:
BOSCH is seen accusing {Pollington} of recording him, and that it’s illegal – this is on the camera that BOSCH is holding.
That statement is false. If you watch the beginning of Vid 83 (which is the video referred to) you will hear that objected to Pollington following me with a camera, not to the camera itself.
He also aggressively questioned me about the video, demanding several times “Who’s unit is that?” and asking me to pause the video at a particular scene (and the screenshot below is the scene where he wanted to examine the video):
When I explained that I was on the back stairs to my unit, McClellan explained that “If you take any photograph or video of the interior of someone else’s home, even by accident, you are going to be arrested. The problem is your camera, and you shoving it in their faces”. When I pointed out that Pollington had been following me around with a cell phone held up as though recording, and that I had previously objected to him following me with a camera, he replied “You’re recording him, so what’s wrong with him recording you?”. I showed McClellan a picture of the “Video Cameras in Use” sign on Pollington’s door, and reminded him that Pollington had said the ‘I have cameras all over the building’ or words to that effect. Pollington following me around (in the previous video)
McClellan was uninterested in the fact that Pollington was antagonistic and clearly not afraid of me (I showed McClellan this screenshot and several others that showed Pollington’s relaxed posture and the cell phone he was using (redundantly) to record video of me.
I also mentioned that Richard Pollington had recorded the interior of my apartment, and had continued to do so after my objection. McClellan invited me to show him the video; I replied that it was not yet on my blog (and at this point, it wasn’t. The videos I was referring to are (Vid 60), (Vid 61) and (Vid62). McClellan told me to let him know when I found it.
He then asked “What else do you have?”
So, I showed him the video from November 23, 2018 (Vid 53b) that clearly shows Jeremy Stamper uttering a threat (“Fuck this asshole. I’m gonna punch him out”). McClellan was very dismissive of the complaint. So I offered to show him the video from December 3, 2018. McLellan asked if I had complained to police about that incident (I had) and when I told him yes, he dismissed the complaint.
He then tried to instruct me on de-escalation techniques. For fifteen minutes. Every suggestion he had was something my roomate and myself had already tried, with no success (and I had to grit my teeth and listen to yet another “Why don’t you just move?” speech from yet another HPS member betraying his ignorance of his own city. The short answer is that I couldn’t afford to move. I’ll add some commentary below on this point.). The conversation was similar to the 30 minute conversation my roomate and I had had with police on January 3, 2018. (And the problem here is that all of those de-escalation techniques assume that the other party is not seeking confrontation. No de-escalation, or compromise, or concession to a bully’s ‘feelings’ will prevent a bully from continuing to antagonize, provoke and escalate. Appeasement doesn’t work, other than temporarily, and always ends in a bully escalating his behavior. I’d already tried avoiding the common areas of the building as much as possible; the result was our landlord’s crew pushing harder.)
He honestly believed that a one bedroom apartment rented for $850-$900. At this point in time, the cheapest one bedroom I’d found was $1250, and there was visible mould in the photos in the listing).
I tried to explain the concept of bullying to McClellan (he was being deliberately obtuse about my point on besetting. I know it isn’t a crime, but it IS prohibited conduct. If you continually beset someone after they have asked you not to communicate with them, you ARE committing a crime. Criminal harassment.)
McClellan was also clearly becoming frustrated that Marie and myself hadn’t “just moved out”. He made reference several times to the waste of HPS resources (although he phrased it more diplomatically than that). He became increasingly condescending and dismissive. At one pint he said; “You know what the problem was? You’re the kind that talks back. If you hadn’t talked back to your landlord and to the superintendent this wouldn’t have happened. And it’s high school bullshit. Do you really care if they call you names? Stop calling us.” I replied that I found being called a “fag” in particular. I added that I didn’t expect anyone wearing “that disgrace of a cap badge” to understand the concept of defending one’s home. That led to a short and mutually insulting discussion on the recent events at Pride 2019 (and the rather tone deaf and downright insulting fallout from the City and HPS after that fiasco), and HPS treatment of mentally ill people in general (which, if I were being charitable, I would characterize as “Shitful”). McClellan didn’t like what I had to say (and after 20 minutes of his increasing antagonism, false analogies, downright stubborn ignorance of the rental market in Hamilton and outright victim blaming, I pushed back. Verbally. I have a sharp tongue sometimes. This was one of those times.
McClellan responded with “You’re lucky we even let fags live downtown”. He said it calmly, with a smirk on his face and in a normal, pleasant tone. It was a parody of a high school bully, and I believe it was a deliberate attempt to provoke me, and for a moment I considered punching him in the head (but only for a moment). Once I remembered I was in front of Central Police Station, with cops coming and going, I reconsidered. I just wasn’t in the mood to get the shit kicked out of me by a half dozen cops, which is how that would have ended. But the thought crossed my mind, momentarily.
At the time, I interpreted his comment as bullying, not homophobia. And I still think that’s what it was. However, his Occurrence details report does not include reference to my complaints about homophobic insults.
Once I’d thought better of punching a cop when surrounded by his buddies, I recovered my composure and returned the favor. I sweetly thanked him for his time, told him we’d have to agree to disagree, and mentioned specifically how attentive he had been to detail (it was full blown, blatantly obvious sarcasm). Then I left.
I returned to East Avenue South, and went through videos until I found the ones of Pollington standing on my doorstep recording the interior of my apartment. I did recall that McClellan had asked to see them. So I called police non-emergency number (AR-161) at 5:45 pm. A summary of the conversation follows:
00:00 – 00:45 – HPS Voice Message
00_45 – 1:05 – transfer to Jodi in communications
01:20 – end. Jodi asks for Officer, I tell her Lawther, she gets my info, tells me Lawther has finished his shift and gone home. I told her the other officer was McClellan, she tells me he has finished his shift and gone home too. She then offers to email them and leave them a message. I told her it was in regard to incident number 19705957, and that there is a video of Pollington filming my apartment that I’d like him to see.
Around 6 pm, I called back (Ar-162). A summary of that conversation follows:
00:00-00:25 – transfer to Michelle at Communications
00:25-01:40 – I tell Michelle that I have a non-emergency complaint to make. She asks what’s going on. I told her that I believed the specific charge would be criminal mischief, and that the superintendent of our building had been filming the interior of my apartment, and that video of him doing so existed.(At this point, I was getting sick and tired of one or the other of that bunch following me around with a camera. I didn’t mind them recording any interaction, but I did mind being followed, especially by someone who was obviously recording while another one of that bunch would toss rocks, or spit, or make provocative gestures (off camera. Ron Stamper’s favorite gestures were to grab his crotch as I approached, or mime the act of fellatio using his thumb). McClellan appears to have completely ignored that distinction).
02:00 – Michelle puts me through to an officer
02:30 – 04:00 I talk to a woman, summarize my situation, give her background and make complaint of about Pollington filming interior of my unit, twice.
04:00 – 5:10 – I ask if it’s mischief. She says it is not mischief if a “landlord” films inside unit. I object that I had been cautioned that doing so was mischief.
05:45 – 06:15 – I give her the incident number 19705957. She puts me on hold.
06:15 – 10:50 – On hold
10:50 – 11:40 – She comes back on phone. She advises me that Pollington filming the interior of my unit was a response to me wearing a body camera. I object that the incidents where Pollington filmed the interior of my apartment were six months before I even purchased the body camera.
11:40 – end I clarified the date of the incident as December 2018. She informs me that it wasn’t a mischief (I still disagree, particularly in the second incident after I had specifically objected to him filming me while inside my apartment) and that, even if it was, there was a six month limitation on those kind of complaints (which isn’t quite accurate. There is a six month limitation on proceeding with a summary charge yes, but there isn’t if the cops had chosen to proceed by indictment. But IAMNAL).
As a side note, this incident resulted in an investigation by professional standards that highlights the utter futility of complaining about police conduct through OIPRD. Briefly, OIPRD began an investigation of my complaint before I made it, referred the complaint to professional standards, who concluded their investigation without even talking to the complainant (me). That fiasco will be detailed in separate posts. The supervisor who signed off on the “investigation” has been recorded making homophobic remarks. What a joke.
It was also one of the incidents that resulted in me printing this shirt:
which I wore to John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton on several occasions while running errands as part of this mess. That led to an interesting series of encounters with Sgt Vanderpol (Badge #95) who is listed as the “Supervising Officer” in the ODR. (Supervising officer / 9 / VANDERPOL, J. / #95). I’ll post the recordings and background to that instructive series of events in later posts.
From the Occurrence Details Report (Doc 350):
Police then met with BOSCH at central PSO. BOSCH present with 4 pages of synopsis’ about various time’s he’s been in a situation of “Besetting”. These pages have been copied and scanned in.
The summary contains more than situations of “besetting”.
There are no current criminal offence listed.
I disagree.
BOSCH then went to the video, and showed 3 different times he feels he was harassed around his residence.
Accurate.
Each time, BOSCH engaged in conversation and it appears that he turns his camera on, and initiates the conversation. There is foul language that goes back and forth between parties.
The first statement is not entirely accurate. I only initiated conversation in one of the videos, and then because Richard was following me with a camera. The second sentence is accurate.
BOSCH is seen accusing {Pollington} of recording him, and that it’s illegal – this is on the camera that BOSCH is holding.
This statement is false. See above. I objected to Pollington following me, with a camera, not to the camera itself. I’d thought that distinction was clear to McClellan. Apparently not. (And I think it was. My purely subjective opinion is that he was being an asshole on this point.)
Police had a lengthy conversation with BOCSH with regards to his safety. BOSCH feels threatened, and not safe, but refuses to more because of “the principle of the matter”.
And because I couldn’t afford to move. McClellan was given both reasons. Either one should have been enough to answer the question “Why don’t you move?” but McClellan didn’t want to hear it.
BOSCH also stated that he only makes $400 a week, and affordable housing is hard to find. The writer offered the number to victim services to assist with this issue.
The first sentence is inconsistent with his later statement that “BOSCH has the ability to leave but refuses.” Even if I were able to find accommodation at $950/month, $400/week=$1700/month gross income, or about $1400 net income. Plus utilities, etc etc comes to more than $1400. Not to mention the costs associated with defending against John’s flurry of litigation, and Pollington’s private complaint (which was based on lies, as were John’s L2 Applications at the LTB).
Victim services is useless to a tenant being bullied into moving by a landlord. Period. I’d already established that point several times over at this point.
BOSCH was clearly distraught that police didn’t make arrests for “besetting”. Police recommended the RTA enforcement agency, which BOSCH stated the he has 3 on-going matters with.
The first sentence is inaccurate. I was distraught that McClellan was acting like an instigating prick, and wouldn’t charge crimes I showed him on video (especially the breach and uttering threats). McClellan sis recommend I contact the RHEU (after some minutes of conversation before I understood what he was talking about; McClellan frequently mislabelled the other government agencies involved in this mess. There is no such thing as the RTA enforcement agency, and I thought I’d set him straight on that point. Apparently not.) I also told him there were two complaints already made to the RHEU, not three.
Police advised that BOSCH cease communication with all those involved. BOCSH stated that he’s tried this and stated that he will always stand up for himself.
Accurate. I’d tried ignoring them, it hadn’t worked. And I don’t see any reason why I can’t tell an antagonistic bully to get out of my face.
Police took a run at a number of ideas/options to help de-escalate the issues at 99 East Av S. BOSCH had an answer for all of them.
And the answer was the same in each case; we’d tried his suggestion already and it hadn’t worked.
After about 45 minutes of going in circles, BOSCH finally agreed to disagree. BOSCH thanked police for their time and left the station.
McClellan was going in circles; I wasn’t. I did thank him for his time (see above).
It appears all sides are at fault. BOSCH has the ability to leave but refuses. He made reference that this isn’t a “dance” -this is “war”.
I had objected to his false analogy that “It takes two to tango” suggesting that Marie and I were partially at fault for the ongoing problems. The tango is a complicated dance that requires the active participation of both partners. That is not a good analogy for this situation. A closer analogy would be war, where it is started and continued if only one side wants it to continue. Which was what was going on here.
To summarize, nothing criminal took place. Once side isn’t happy because BOSCH points a camera towards their home. BOSCH feels he’s being harassed by everyone he lives with. No end solution.
I disagree with the first sentence. The second sentence is ridiculous, especially after I’d offered to show him videos of Pollington filming the interior of my apartment. The third sentence is also inaccurate (I didn’t feel that way. I just wanted to be left alone by Pollington and the Stampers. And the cops, at this point.)
To this point there have been at least seventeen complaints to police (at least 10 from our landlord and his crew) resulting in 15 responses, and charges being laid in two cases (against Jeremy Stamper). The tally is at 19 hours 0 minutes of hearing time at the LTB, in 15 hearings, two by telephone, thirteen in person (counting the Case Management Hearing and mediation session of May 19, 2017 as hearings). It has also used up 9 hours and 51 minutes of a mediator’s time. On the criminal side, it has used up whatever time the pre-enquete hearing used when process was issued on Pollington’s private complaint, and two short appearances. Call it three hearings, 60 minutes of a judge’s time.
Hamilton Slumlords 