Donald Smith vs Jonathan Yaniv - 8/11/2020 Criminal Case Update

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
RavenCrow said:
Unless there's some sort of proof, I have a hard time believing JY simply asked just a few of them for arm and / or leg waxing. I'm guessing that was probably after the fact that he asked them for a female dick wax, in which they were already creeped out and no longer wanted anything to do with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

The waxers were working out of their homes and advertising on Social media.
Jonathan had to trick them into giving him their contact info.

He employed a number of techniques to get that info including only asking for services that didn't involve the crotch area.
Once he got their info, he would then ramp up the requests to include his balls so he could then pursue them at the HRT's.

His preferred method was using a fake Facebook profile with a biological female photograph.

He does that with Youtube using DMCA complaints as well, trying to force people to reveal their identity and personal info
to keep from losing their accounts. He tried it with me and it didn't work.
 
John southern said:
The waxers were working out of their homes and advertising on Social media.
Jonathan had to trick them into giving him their contact info.

He employed a number of techniques to get that info including only asking for services that didn't involve the crotch area.
Once he got their info, he would then ramp up the requests to include his balls so he could then pursue them at the HRT's.

His preferred method was using a fake Facebook profile with a biological female photograph.

He does that with Youtube using DMCA complaints as well, trying to force people to reveal their identity and personal info
to keep from losing their accounts. He tried it with me and it didn't work.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Anyone with eyes can tell right off that he's no biological female.

For me personally, I really don't care if they had a "good reason" or not. I know people like beeble / petch bring up the fact that the best excuse they could have is that they aren't prepared for waxing balls (they don't know how to do it)., but I think the fact that he comes across as a pyscho is good enough.

He's creepy looking. He sounds creepy. Just watch any of his videos..

So I think that alone is a good enough reason. I don't feel a woman should be forced to offer their services, mostly out of their home, to someone they feel uncomfortable around. I personally don't care if they have a religious reason or not. I wouldn't want his creepy ass in my house for any reason... 🤷‍♀️.

I realize that isn't how the law may work, but no one should be forced to serve someone who looks, sounds, and probably smells like Yaniv.
 
The Un-Clit said:
Keean is separate, he was never near JYs car in the first place at least according to his own testimony. But the cops found someone presumably Donald, down below. If they talked to him and he acted sketchy in any way (which face it, he would) they would run his name for warrants.
Click to expand...

Keean was inside the court house when Donald walked down into the underground parking. 2 cops watched him going down there and come back out.
He then walked up to me and showed me the picture at which point I told him for a 10th time not go go near Jonathan or the car.

Up until the arrest, the RCMP were just keep Donald under watch from a distance and then 6 of them got together and walked up and arrested him for uttering threats.
From what I heard there was warrant from around Dec 3rd. Chances are they would have let him leave and let VPD deal with him had he not gone into the court house
or near Jonathan's car.

This is the court house and underground parking. Donald and I were hanging around on the ledge behind the green sign and the cops were watching from the grass area beside the parking.
www.google.com

14340 57 Ave

14340 57 Ave, Surrey, BC V3X 3P1, Canada
www.google.com www.google.com
 
John southern said:
The waxers were working out of their homes and advertising on Social media.
Jonathan had to trick them into giving him their contact info.

He employed a number of techniques to get that info including only asking for services that didn't involve the crotch area.
Once he got their info, he would then ramp up the requests to include his balls so he could then pursue them at the HRT's.

His preferred method was using a fake Facebook profile with a biological female photograph.

He does that with Youtube using DMCA complaints as well, trying to force people to reveal their identity and personal info
to keep from losing their accounts. He tried it with me and it didn't work.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you watched a different hearing or what. Either the judge has things wrong or you do in one case. Point [100] of the ruling regarding the case of Hina Moins say this:

- Ms. Moin provided Ms. Yaniv with an address and explained that she provided the service out of her home. Ms. Yaniv asked Ms. Moin if she would do a brazilian wax, and Ms. Moin said that she only did arms and legs. Ms. Yaniv said that she needed a leg wax, and the two discussed times for an appointment.

[For brevity I have snipped the text message conversation but it can be found in the ruling where Moins refused to do the leg wax after learning Yaniv was transgender, and suggested her husband wouldn't allow for it]

- Ms. Yaniv acknowledged in her testimony that she was angry during this exchange. As in the complaint against Mrs. Hehar, the elements of Ms. Yaniv’s complaint are established on the face of this Facebook interaction. Ms. Moin is prepared to offer Ms. Yaniv a leg wax until she discloses her gender identity. Because Ms. Moin did not participate in this complaint, she has not advanced a justification for the denial. But for my decision to dismiss this complaint under s. 27(1)(e), I would likely have found it justified.

John, your statement suggests outright deception in all the cases. This case was pretty straightforward. Yaniv asked for a brazilian, was told they didn't do them, then asked for a leg waxing., appointment would be arranged and then refused based on being transgendered. My point here is that you seem to present a bias as a first hand witness to the events at the BCHRT that you claim I really can't understand. I'm asking you, did the judge lie in this ruling and deliberately provide a false accounting of what happened? Either that or you are painting the proceeding with a broad stroke glossing over the finer details of each case which don't necessarily align with your generalization.
 
Last edited:
beeble said:
I don't know if you watched a different hearing or what. Either the judge has things wrong or you do in one case. Point [100] of the ruling regarding the case of Hina Moins say this:

- Ms. Moin provided Ms. Yaniv with an address and explained that she provided the service out of her home. Ms. Yaniv asked Ms. Moin if she would do a brazilian wax, and Ms. Moin said that she only did arms and legs. Ms. Yaniv said that she needed a leg wax, and the two discussed times for an appointment.

[For brevity I have snipped the text message conversation but it can be found in the ruling where Moins refused to do the leg wax after learning Yaniv was transgender, and suggested her husband wouldn't allow for it]

- Ms. Yaniv acknowledged in her testimony that she was angry during this exchange. As in the complaint against Mrs. Hehar, the elements of Ms. Yaniv’s complaint are established on the face of this Facebook interaction. Ms. Moin is prepared to offer Ms. Yaniv a leg wax until she discloses her gender identity. Because Ms. Moin did not participate in this complaint, she has not advanced a justification for the denial. But for my decision to dismiss this complaint under s. 27(1)(e), I would likely have found it justified.

The last sentence is also where this judge ruled that had he not dismissed the case because of Yaniv's improper motives (under 27(1)(e)) that he likely would have ruled in Yaniv's favor.

John, your statement suggests outright deception in all the cases. This case was pretty straightforward. He asked for a brazilian, was told they didn't do them, then asked for a leg waxing., appointment would be arranged and then refused based on being transgendered. My point here is that you seem to present a bias as a first hand witness to the events that you claim I really can't understand. I'm asking you, did the judge lie in this ruling and deliberately provide a false accounting of what happened? Either that or you are painting the proceeding with a broad stroke glossing over the finer details of each case which don't necessarily align with your generalization.
Click to expand...

I'm done with you Mr. Creepy.

blocked
 
RavenCrow said:
Makes sense. Anyone with eyes can tell right off that he's no biological female.

For me personally, I really don't care if they had a "good reason" or not. I know people like beeble / petch bring up the fact that the best excuse they could have is that they aren't prepared for waxing balls (they don't know how to do it)., but I think the fact that he comes across as a pyscho is good enough.

He's creepy looking. He sounds creepy. Just watch any of his videos..

So I think that alone is a good enough reason. I don't feel a woman should be forced to offer their services, mostly out of their home, to someone they feel uncomfortable around. I personally don't care if they have a religious reason or not. I wouldn't want his creepy ass in my house for any reason... 🤷‍♀️.

I realize that isn't how the law may work, but no one should be forced to serve someone who looks, sounds, and probably smells like Yaniv.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

This is a bloke who doesn't agree that forcing a female to touch his genitals is sexual assault yet tells the world that he was "sexually assaulted" when his genitals were touched against his will.

A creep is a creep is a creep.
 
beeble said:
I don't know if you watched a different hearing or what. Either the judge has things wrong or you do in one case. Point [100] of the ruling regarding the case of Hina Moins say this:

- Ms. Moin provided Ms. Yaniv with an address and explained that she provided the service out of her home. Ms. Yaniv asked Ms. Moin if she would do a brazilian wax, and Ms. Moin said that she only did arms and legs. Ms. Yaniv said that she needed a leg wax, and the two discussed times for an appointment.

[For brevity I have snipped the text message conversation but it can be found in the ruling where Moins refused to do the leg wax after learning Yaniv was transgender, and suggested her husband wouldn't allow for it]

- Ms. Yaniv acknowledged in her testimony that she was angry during this exchange. As in the complaint against Mrs. Hehar, the elements of Ms. Yaniv’s complaint are established on the face of this Facebook interaction. Ms. Moin is prepared to offer Ms. Yaniv a leg wax until she discloses her gender identity. Because Ms. Moin did not participate in this complaint, she has not advanced a justification for the denial. But for my decision to dismiss this complaint under s. 27(1)(e), I would likely have found it justified.

John, your statement suggests outright deception in all the cases. This case was pretty straightforward. Yaniv asked for a brazilian, was told they didn't do them, then asked for a leg waxing., appointment would be arranged and then refused based on being transgendered. My point here is that you seem to present a bias as a first hand witness to the events at the BCHRT that you claim I really can't understand. I'm asking you, did the judge lie in this ruling and deliberately provide a false accounting of what happened? Either that or you are painting the proceeding with a broad stroke glossing over the finer details of each case which don't necessarily align with your generalization.
Click to expand...
But the judge said they would likely have found her reason for refusal justified. He asked for a brazilian and she doesn't do that for anyone. He asked for a leg wax THEN told her he was trans. If she has religious objections, it doesn't matter whether she is waxing genitalia or a non sexual part of the body. If she's Muslim, for example, she is not allowed to be alone with a man who is not her husband or a relative. Even if they don't touch -- she can't be alone with him. So, who the fuck cares that it was just about a leg wax. The refusal to wax a man is the issue and she is within her rights to refuse anyone that will make her violate her religious beliefs or who may be a danger to her. Especially someone who admits he was ANGRY during this exchange. Would any woman allow an angry man to come to her house to be waxed? Not if she has any common sense.
 
Spastic Colon said:
If she has religious objections, it doesn't matter whether she is waxing genitalia or a non sexual part of the body
Click to expand...
My post wasn't to the point of the religious objection or potential security of person, it was to the portrayal of deception in all the cases. There was no tricking in this case, mentioning trans at the end wasn't out of place. Wouldn't have mattered when he asked, it was done while negotiating the service to be performed. As for this case the judge (Tribunal Member) said "likely", not certain or absolute. I would like to see how this would have been ruled had Moins presented a justification (one wasn't forwarded by the defendant in this case). This is one where Janiv may have had merit as the Judge/Tribunal member was uncertain exactly how they'd rule.

Specific question would be, was the judge/Tribunal Member suggesting that security of person was justified (If Yaniv was abusive), or would it have been a religious objection that was justified? Combination of both? We don't know, and this may be unanswered until another case like it appears before the BCHRT. Note: reasonable accommodation as it for religious freedom is pushed down to the tribunals as well. You'd have to show undue hardship in attempting to accommodate the request.
 
Last edited:
Spastic Colon said:
But the judge said they would likely have found her reason for refusal justified. He asked for a brazilian and she doesn't do that for anyone. He asked for a leg wax THEN told her he was trans. If she has religious objections, it doesn't matter whether she is waxing genitalia or a non sexual part of the body. If she's Muslim, for example, she is not allowed to be alone with a man who is not her husband or a relative. Even if they don't touch -- she can't be alone with him. So, who the fuck cares that it was just about a leg wax. The refusal to wax a man is the issue and she is within her rights to refuse anyone that will make her violate her religious beliefs or who may be a danger to her. Especially someone who admits he was ANGRY during this exchange. Would any woman allow an angry man to come to her house to be waxed? Not if she has any common sense.
Click to expand...
Leg wax, my arse.

This vindictive sod hounded one woman via her (ex?) workplace etc, he even chastised one of the women about her Dr's online reviews after her refusal - facts I'm glad were publicly revealed.

He's a nasty, sly individual who needs wiping off the face of the earth.
 
beeble said:
John, your statement suggests outright deception in all the cases. This case was pretty straightforward. Yaniv asked for a brazilian, was told they didn't do them, then asked for a leg waxing., appointment would be arranged and then refused based on being transgendered. My point here is that you seem to present a bias as a first hand witness to the events at the BCHRT that you claim I really can't understand. I'm asking you, did the judge lie in this ruling and deliberately provide a false accounting of what happened? Either that or you are painting the proceeding with a broad stroke glossing over the finer details of each case which don't necessarily align with your generalization.
Click to expand...

In the very material you quote at the end, "Because Ms. Moin did not participate in this complaint, she has not advanced a justification for the denial. But for my decision to dismiss this complaint under s. 27(1)(e), I would likely have found it justified. " Cousineau says it right here: if she had advanced a justification for denial, she would likely have found it justified.

Yaniv was sneaky and creepy, and anyone reasonable would refuse to do business with anyone like that. Because JY stuffed himself into a protected class, he figured he had the magic bullet to get paid for victimhood. He didn't.

Your tilting at windmills, buddy.
 
The Un-Clit said:
Cousineau says it right here: if she had advanced a justification for denial, she would likely have found it justified.
Click to expand...
Already discussed that above - "likely" is not "certain" or absolute. Summary of the earlier comment: It is also unclear what the justification they would agree with. There are two potential outs (and the court document identifies both religious freedom and security of person earlier in the ruling). Would it have been because of Yaniv's abusive behavior when she refused, and/or would it be an issue of undue hardship (an exception allowed in reasonable accommodation when religious beliefs factor in)? The Tribunal member didn't elaborate on what grounds they may have likely ruled it justified.
 
Last edited:
beeble said:
Already discussed that above - "likely" is not "certain" or absolute. Summary of the earlier comment: It is also unclear what the justification they would agree with. There are two potential outs (and the court document identifies both religious freedom and security of person earlier in the ruling). Would it have been because of Yaniv's abusive behavior when she refused, and/or would it be an issue of undue hardship (an exception allowed in reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs)? The Tribunal member didn't elaborate on what grounds they may have likely ruled it justified.
Click to expand...

:lit: ......can you not even see how hard you are reaching here? Wouldn't you laugh at anyone twisting themselves in knots trying to justify a point like you are doing? "likely is not certain"?? :stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

I've hit my spergery limit for the night here. I'm out.
 
beeble said:
Already discussed that above - "likely" is not "certain" or absolute. Summary of the earlier comment: It is also unclear what the justification they would agree with. There are two potential outs (and the court document identifies both religious freedom and security of person earlier in the ruling). Would it have been because of Yaniv's abusive behavior when she refused, and/or would it be an issue of undue hardship (an exception allowed in reasonable accommodation when religious beliefs factor in)? The Tribunal member didn't elaborate on what grounds they may have likely ruled it justified.
Click to expand...
You know we have a thread about the BCHRT stuff don't you? This is supposed to be about Donald vs Yaniv. Why you are deliberately being obtuse and steering the conversation to your semantic nitpicking and theorizing is anyone's guess. You could actually be that stupid, though, so maybe you can't help it. If you want to keep beating this dead horse, please take it to the appropriate thread.
 
Donald's video this morning

YouTube

youtu.be youtu.be

Plus: family values petch style.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20191210-083300_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20191210-083300_Chrome.jpg
    278.7 KB · Views: 136
Last edited:
beeble said:
I noticed @CdnWatcher had a conversation about Donald being a citizen journalist and this was in the exchange:

View attachment 1042208
Edit: Looking at a number their comments about journalists these ones appear to be to Donald directly but were part of another @yesthatanna discussion. The uncertainty is the account being responded to doesn't exist anymore:
View attachment 1042265
Click to expand...
I belive you are Michael Petch, as well as a raging faggot. You fucking mongoloid autist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom