Yaniv's lawsuit against Rebel Media dismissed, BC Supreme Court weighs in - This judge was not having any of Jonny's nonsense.

Wyróżnienie
"the Judge also referenced Yaniv’s Township of Langley application to organize and host a topless pool party for kids as young as 12 where parents are banned."

This straight up sounds like a plot from some pedophile in a cartoon like Family Guy. When and why did Yaniv try to organize a literal pedophilic topless pool party?
 
Providence powiedział(a):
Eventually he was going to have to run into somebody with professional integrity that takes their job seriously, but look how long it took. It took *years*. Speaks volumes about the state of the Canadian legal system.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Totally agree. I'd also like to add that RM's lawyers offered up some fine evidence. jonny, as usual, totally out of his depth (and mind).

Still disappointed that evidence from yaniv wasn't insisted upon at BCHRT - him and his mother came out with some incredulous lies. Maybe, just maybe, yaniv would have curbed his court appetite a tad if he had been held to account more so in that case(s). But then again, we might not have had today's glorious judgement.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Faggitory powiedział(a):
"the Judge also referenced Yaniv’s Township of Langley application to organize and host a topless pool party for kids as young as 12 where parents are banned."

This straight up sounds like a plot from some pedophile in a cartoon like Family Guy. When and why did Yaniv try to organize a literal pedophilic topless pool party?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
In 2019. And because he's a pedophile.
Note, his Wikipedia article still licks his necrotizing gash. I bet we'll never see that ruling quoted there.
 
> [...] Yaniv’s Township of Langley application to organize and host a topless pool party for kids as young as 12 where parents are banned.
> Yaniv also argued that being labelled a pedophile [...] was the most damaging.

The lion, the witch, and the audacity of this bitch.
Despite browsing the internet since 1999, the mere existence of these kind of people still baffles me at this day.
 
"This ain't the Human rights tribunal son, now leave the kids alone"
 
After countless L's Canuckistan finally gets a win. Cheers bros 🍻
 
Kheapathic powiedział(a):
Yes, but this was only a regular court; what's the opinion of Canada's Human Rights Tribunal? You know, where the real decisions are made.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Yeah this. I doubt this is over yet. He'll run to the tribunal and they'll point out the regularly invoked statement canadian courts love in situations like this - that they don't consider truth to be a valid defense or reason for making 'hateful' statements or actions when you get taken to court over it. wouldn't be the first time
 
Lol, I read the file and had no idea the judge, literally, listed all of Yanniv's exploits point by point. :story:

Btw thanks judge, this is quite a good blueprint for anyone wanting to make a youtube documentary about yanniv.
 
I wonder what would happen if this was posted on Reddit?

sad.png
 
it's a dry document, but page 17 has a nice quote:

I am satisfied that some members of the public would have a genuine interest in knowing about those things, if true, inasmuch as they can fairly be said to “affect the welfare of citizens”. In addition, Ms. Simpson has deliberately courted public notoriety and controversy through her online activism and otherwise. It follows that her public conduct can fairly be said to be matters “to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached.”
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
 
Fastest Hand In The East powiedział(a):
This sounds very based and all, but can't Janiv now complain about judge because he basically called him a pedo without any court rullings or convictions? In law you tend to be very careful with allegations.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
No, Judges in most western nations have what is known as Absolute Immunity. You cannot bring a claim against them for something done in the course of their work as a judge. Most countries also have something similar for politicians, where a politician cannot have a claim brought against them for something said during government proceedings.
Cops also have something called qualified immunity, which unlike judges can be waived if their behaviour is egregious enough, but it’s a high bar to pass. It’s why cops got away with some particularly egregious shootings over the years (part of the issue is that the conduct needs to have been clearly unpermitted before they did it. If they shoot someone who comes out with a gun cause the police rolled up to their house without police uniforms and didn’t tell them they were police, they get off scot free at least once. Often times it’s state by state too). Anyway, Judges can say basically anything in court without worry, as they should be able to.

I am not a lawyer, and most of this info is really only directly applicable to the US.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole