Yaniv seemingly defeats themselves at the BCHRT?

X vs Hot Mess Salon (No. 2) is a dead ringer for Vexatious Litigant Jessica Yaniv

February 19, 2020

A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled another final decision, which on the high balance of probabilities, we long suspected and deduced is vexatious litigant and transgender activist, Jessica (formerly known as Jonathan) Yaniv.  

Today, Tribunal Member Norman Trerise was satisfied that “X”, as “anonymized” in the complaint until conclusion of the hearing, was not adversely treated over the “scheduling a haircut”.

The hearing was heard over a single day on July 9, 2019 sandwiched between the hearings of the infamous waxing cases.

Although we refer to “X”, we deduce how this is Yaniv on the balance of probabilities, as we add them up here.

Ironically, this was a case that did not involve persistence for Brazilian waxing although it was in the timeline when Yaniv engaged the other local aestheticians for those services.

Similarly as the interactions unfolded with a stylist, X presented themselves by the former (male) name as Yaniv would present as “Jonathan” rather than “Jessica” using Facebook and Social Media to get a bargain on “gender affirmative care” services in the other cases. The stylist did not reply, which equated to discrimination by refusal of service.

Your support for JY Meow Mix helps us cover costs such as legal document searches, web hosting fees, and server expenses. Please consider throwing a couple bucks in the pot to keep us meowing.

Please click HERE to donate to help us cover these expenses.

Thank you!

As it turns out, the stylist claims to have been reasonably locked out of her Facebook. She was very humble and wanted X to be a client. X would rebut those claims inferring themselves as an expert at Facebook and Instagram stating, “And I don’t appreciate you lying to me. Little do you know, I work in the field of marketing.” 

That’s right, Yaniv is also a marketer by trade, which is the one big giveaway.  Furthermore, Yaniv made arguments one could only be locked out because of “pornographic material”, which we assume was a politically correct term used by the Tribunal Member in the decision.  We know Yaniv is always “sex-driven”.

During the initial conversations, X claims that they recently “move[ed] from Walnut Grove from Cloverdale”, which is consistent with Yaniv having moved to the Hawthorne from Greenside Estates, respectively, several months prior to this online interaction. 

Yaniv continued to engage in confrontation and as the Tribunal member cited “extremely hostile manner” over the course of a few weeks and launching a Tribunal complaint under impulse despite receiving apologies and invitation for services from both the stylist and owner, Jayme Michelle Simpson,

On March 16, 2018, Yaniv was informed on Facebook by Simpson that the stylist was eventually let go from the salon. Then there were claims the following day of a break-in. Yaniv had responded that Hot Mess Salon is going to be named in a BCHRT complaint and insisted it be forwarded to the stylist’s address, regardless that the evidence clearly showed they tried make amends and there was no transphobia after-the-fact. X had previously sought out the stylist and found her at Hot Mess Salon from the initial radio silence, as Yaniv would do to one of the waxing women, including harassing them at work.

Yet X testified that the stylist wrote, “Evil, untrue things about me as well. They were all on social media and were all lies.”  It appears no further evidence was provided, but the narrative was so consistent with Yaniv amplifying and exaggerating their victimhood without any definitive evidence. 

Yaniv was already an infamous national pariah over the waxing cases, which regardless of that publication ban, had been receiving criticism.

As Simpson did not testify in her defense at the hearing, X claimed that the salon owner “never” committed discrimination yet the day prior was maliciously putting in a last minute application to add them as an individual respondent, but knowing it would delay the proceeding, abandoned it.

Previously, in January 2019, when granted the anonymization order, “X” used some of the “more extreme” responses from social media over “hateful” backlash regarding other “waxing” cases.

“As my safety is and will be in jeopardy as well as the safety of my family, I urge the Tribunal to take these comments as stated and apply a publication and disclosure ban throughout all complaints that would consist of:

No publication of my name, address, phone number, picture or any personal identifying details

Due to the fact that identifying documents were released in another complaint, I am requesting the Tribunal to make an order to limit any and all disclosure of documents relating to these complaints to any party that is not in this group of complaints (including media).”

X pleaded in the January 31, 2019 anonymization application to this complaint.

“X” stated the complaint should “not be grouped” (inferring the other waxing complaints (at the time) and used a sample from social media with an unnamed individual stating, “Perhaps the prerequisite for getting a Brazilian is to have to go through a Pap smear and invasive gynecological exam first.”

Yaniv, with a violent tendency around the media, has relentlessly pushed for publication bans, inclusive of the media, previously in the waxing case, as well as disclosed with the ongoing Whatcott case and current criminal charges for illegal weapon possession.  However, as this application was granted only until the hearing concluded, which it appears that “X” did not request an application to extend beyond it’s “conclusion”, it is therefore within the pubic interest to discuss it.  Therefore, our reasonable deduction that X is Jessica Yaniv is fair game.

X presented themselves by their former male name and would defend themselves stating, “I am [actually] a girl”, which is something consistently defended by Yaniv on social media when either dead named or referred to as “male”.  Other facts in X’s testimony included “enter[ing] a beauty contest and was rejected because [they] were transgender” mirrors Yaniv’s late May 2019 tweets arguing about the jurisdiction to take beauty contest on a cruise ship to the a Human Rights Tribunal that rejected them.

Evidence of tweets regarding beauty contest rejection on May 26, 2019.
Evidence of tweets regarding beauty contest rejection on May 28, 2019.

A striking similarity that is hard to determine is that on March 17, 2018, which was within 24 hours of Yaniv’s declaration of the BCHRT complaint to Simpson and Simpson’s firing of the stylist involved in the incursion, a post was written on the Dirty against Simpson.  Although Yaniv previously was ousted by their former friend Katie for making up fake profiles on the Dirty (e.g. posing as Meghan Murphy and Morgane Oger to name a few) that included their tampon fetishism to defame disabled citizen journalist Donald Francis Smith on the website in October 2019.  We note this but cannot conclude reasonably that it was Yaniv.

We present enough, in the absence of further evidence, that the striking parallels that X is indeed Jessica Yaniv whom the Tribunal Member concluded their “evidence makes no sense” has become self-defeated in the absence of lawyers and defendants.

Previously, Yaniv had been motivated by a fulfilling an alleged “LGBTQ+ agenda” with “racial animus” to file other complaints that resulted in the $6,000 improper costs for manufacturing the complaints.  According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, representing the new waxing cases, the  new cases are deferred for up to six months if Yaniv doesn’t pay the previous damages awarded.  However, there is no word whether it extends to Yaniv’s ongoing cases against Christian activist Bill Whatcott and the Eco Chic salon over “gender differential pricing”.

Although Yaniv has currently recused themselves for four days from social media, likely attributed to the pressure of other facing civil actions from Rebel Media, Amy Eileen Hamm and the pending hearing to fix a trial date weapons charges, we suspect this decision was rendered is attributing to leaving the public eye.

In the end, Yaniv claimed to have received a “pixie cut” at Magicuts.  We hope it looked better than the ridiculous party city wig!

Does a pixie cut look better than a Party City Wig? You tell us!

You can read the decision here at: X vs. Hot Mess Salon (No. 2)

By @menacingcrow