On July 16, 2019 I wasn’t home and neither was my roomate, so nothing happened.
On July 17, 2019 I received a text from my roomate.
I has some hopes Stamper wanted to talk like a civilized human being, but no expectation that he would. He met my expectations. When I arrived at the building a little more than an hour later, I was greeted by the Stampers.
Christina Stamper apparently made good on her threat to call police. The Stampers seem to have taken over Richard Pollington’s role in the harassment. Call the cops about everything and hope something sticks.
The unwelcome communication was getting out of hand, so I also made a complaint to police non-emergency line a half hour later, after reviewing the videos.
That was at 1 pm. I got a call from Constable Fleming to pick up a witness impact statement for the events of July 12, 2019. So I went back to 155 King William and picked it up. It was a blank form, with another page attached with writing on it. I never saw the other page, the officer on duty at the desk ripped it off and handed me the blank Victim Impact Statement. Apparently I was supposed to fill in the incident number and all the rest on my own. So I did. The officer behind the desk told me to bring it back and specify that it was for Constable French.
Around 5 pm, John came by and visited with the Stampers and the Pollingtons in the driveway. John was easy to hear from my bedroom window (and I think he knew it). He was quite convincing assuring the Stampers and Richard that we would be evicted on August 6. I knew otherwise, but I didn’t say anything to John about it. John is the one in the blue shirt, waving at the camera in the video.
At 1:30 the following morning (July 18, 2019) I received a call from Constable Fleming about the Stamper complaint. Rather than wake my roomate, I met Fleming at a nearby Tim Horton’s. As always, the cops traveled in a pack. There were two other officers with her. What a waste. An unproductive waste at that.
Constable Fleming’s objection to my characterizing what happened in the video as unwanted communication was that “You’re pointing a camera at them so they have the right to respond to your communication.” Further conversation revealed the constable thought that recording a video of my surroundings was communicating with anyone visible in the video, so the communication in the videos was initiated by me.
That’s a rather curious interpretation of the word “communicate” and not one that a judge would agree with (I think. I’m not a lawyer.)
So, I told her next time I’d just stand there and smile until one of them took a swing at me (think R v Eltom, 2010 ONSC 4001 (CanLII), perTrotter J, at para 13). It’s pretty clear to me this kind of activity by the Stampers and Pollington are besetting, but try and find a cop who even knows the meaning of the word in Hamilton. Then I walked off.