top of page

SCC: Awaiting Your Response

To: Supreme Court of Canada Justices:

From: Paul J James

Re: James vs York University Docket Number (#36795)

Status: Currently floating around Ottawa either sleeping at Strathcona Park or the Ottawa Mission along with 25 others in the Chapel facility.

Eating: Three meals a day for the past ten as the body healed from the walk and bike ride to Ottawa which delivered significant physical distress.

Handcuffs: Travis and Liz persons I met on the Alderville First nations reserve gifted them to me so that I can chain myself to the railings at Parliament Hill in protest of the social injustice.

Too Easy: For Paul J James to be removed and ignored. Plus there are no railings conducive to being handcuffed.

Therefore Awaiting your Response: To the Letter of Appeal (all three parts)

My Nephew: Below is a note sent recently to my nephew. It speaks for itself. I love him and my family. It is what makes the purveyors of the stigma and injustice of the issue so revolting.

Dr Jordan Peterson: In the correspondence I reference Dr Jordan Peterson in a positive light. He is clearly a brilliant Canadian mind. He is also political and highly stigmatizing on the issue of substance use, issues and disability. His book 12 Rules of Life while spellbounding in areas had a few agenda's one of which was to protect the establishment class - no matter how much he tired to camouflage that reality he let them off the hook at the expense of scapegoating all others. For someone with the swath of reading and experiential depth - it is indeed courageous that Dr Peterson forgoes such inevitable table turning,

"If you cannot understand why someone did something look at the consequences - and infer the motivation" Carl Jung

The Colossal Damage the Canadian Establishment have delivered

by not addressing the Stigma of Drug Addiction for so many years


As university teaches you. When you have an intellectual thought on something, an hypothesis or thesis idea, you then set out to prove or disprove your proposition. The paragraphs you sent - copied pages of a book with no added comments or even a courtesy hello - awkwardly expressed an argument using a borrowed generalized assessment which you applied to your uncle.

To have a valid point it is prudent to know the argument for both sides. A prerequisite in any university essay. Failure to argue and you fail the paper. It is a difficult process as a first year university student. A lot of work and you have to reshape your thinking. Importantly, you have to question critically and not just read on face value. To do like you have done here - is what Dr Jordan Peterson would refer to as being an "ignoramus" - one reason why apparently women say NO 85% of the time to approaches of men. Just saying.

The true value of arguing back and forth in a paper is that you learn to get to the "correct, most correct or most plausible" explanation for something (your proposition). To not go through this rigorous four year university "training scheme" can leave you highly vulnerable and exposed to being naive and ignorant - and "that's not good"!

It is why I was disappointed/surprised you selected not to go to university.

So, refer to Dr Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life the whole book (for your own good) and in this specific instance to Chapter One with even further "deepness" to pages 23 on, until the end. This would be an argument which would contradict Tolle's position being applied to PJJ in this instance: I have straightened my back picked up my shoulders and said NO to Stigma. To the brutal oppression and bullying of so many segregated, segmented people including your very own behavior not just the other day but also in that, you haven't assisted positively in any way.

Rather instead, the James family with naive rolling eyes, communicated with others behind my back, to harm, thwart and hinder. And that is not good. Then, right out of the blue you send copied pages from a book with no words. I haven't heard from you in 2 years - in spite of my constant communications. Had you added context through slicing and dicing words into sentences then I could have an idea of your own thoughts, where you are coming from and would respect reading them. No added words or questions leave you in an unenviable position, in that, you have made an opinion which is careless in its application.

It fits well of course to the false narrative because I have been fighting a cause for so long. I utilize emotions for what my existence is - living on the street - and I have been upfront from the beginning - this is a contribution to the war to end "The War on People" which requires a level of intense, controlled dislike (hatred) and anger. No one can fight a war without such emotions. And most especially when using the pain of hunger striking as a tactic. It is impossible to go through life without ever feeling those innate, necessary emotions at varying levels for each individual, on a continuum. . It is how you manage the emotions which counts. Professional coaches are adept. I decided to be proactive and fight for my professional status, personal life of dignity and the lives of others including Ashley Kelly. Of course my life has gotten even worse as a consequence - that fact is for Canadian institutions to figure out at this stage the segment Dr Jordan Peterson so ruthlessly lets off the hook.

Back to your thesis. It is why I gave you the quotations on behalf of supportive persons and I could add 100 plus others most referencing the current circumstance. So in your essay for example, you could pluck out a few quotes to argue against, or at a bare minimum, lend credence to a different perspective. Then you could perhaps consider the Chimp Paradox and quote from Dr Steve Peters "doesn't mean you roll over every time" or Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers.

So, even though I could have sued entities/people a hundred times over the past decade from the delivery of extreme oppression - I chose to do so only twice. Once against Mooredale (won in a settlement) and the one against York University. All others I have let go. With the York matter I was fighting to save my career (7 years ago) to take care of Ashley (3 years ago) and for the greater good of which the latter two are the only reasons now. My soccer career is permanently over. Quite the price for having a substance disability and seeking support.

Now you begin to get the attention of the "reading instructor" - she thinks "this person is collating his thoughts through analysis".

You could of course reference items from Confronting the Stigma of Drug Addiction to support your argument juxtaposed against perhaps, Robert Greene's Power.

When I opened up to persons including your mum in February 2008 - then York University, GOL TV et al - it was the beginning of the real troubles in my life. What has happened as a consequence of discrimination, prejudice, slander, defamation is wrong. Disgraceful. It is overwhelming.

Couldn't conceptualize how wrong the human rights abuse was at the time - Stigmatized/Paralyzed - as the dreadful impact of Stigma took over from everyone and everywhere. Like fighting asteroids it has been unrelenting ever since, including unfortunately your covert message a few weeks back.

Some of the worst Stigmatizing moments have been delivered from family. They have been the most hurtful, yet I understand where they come from.

The rejection of family - that is the impact of Stigma. Imagine if I had status, money, independence things would be different.

Dr Jordan Peterson's opening rule: Stand Up Straight With Your Shoulders Back: and fight back using your own innate aggression/anger which is a part of us all when summoned. Do so against bullying or you will be susceptible to negative pitiful consequences. Certainly it will hinder your ability to maximize your potential. So after three years from 2009-2012 and such poor, unlawful treatment that is exactly what I did against the ruthless Stigma of this dreadful social phenomenon. And while cut down at every turn, belittled, brutalized and ignored by ALL and sundry including family I have fought back, eventually with the support of courageous individuals/supporters. It's the Joseph Campbell mythological proposition. Another quote for your argument.

To be clear, it is not that the Tolle statement is necessarily ignorant of many realities. I actually know and have experienced persons he is referencing. But similar to knowledge that someone has or is using Crack doesn't equate to them being unintelligent, delinquent, useless, emotional conclude that is to be ignorant, prejudicial, stereotyping, to generalize with the proclivity to display evil. All not good things - using a Peterson axiom.

With your Ipad - you had three remaining notes from a few years ago. One of them which you shared outlines what your goals were. Living in girls. I smiled when I read that one. 18 months ago you stated that you would, by now, be raking in 10,000 a month. Not sure how that is going. Assuming that it is going to plan then what kind of nephew would you be to see your uncle live on the street at Xmas. Irrespective, the former is not always the best of objectives in life - before its time, that is. It is the path of least resistance, not the Hierarchy to Competence.

Better you get on with life without worrying about your uncle percolating negatively in your mind.

"If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide" Ghandi.....if you have read all the blogs, while Swashbuckling towards social justice, I have always found a way to integrate humour....again, just saying!

Perhaps, use this message as a watershed moment to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

Take care nephew.

Love Paul.

No tags yet.
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
bottom of page