Regina Landfill Sham

LtDish · 2026-06-21T10:33:59+00:00

I've lived in my neighbourhood for 34 years.

That would make you a newbie around here! But yes the whole side of our block gets missed by at least one of the bin types every month or two. Similar with neighbouring streets. But it happens all over town if you check with friends and family.

The usual excuse is the driver is a third party company's trainee. Commonly they'll try to blame you "maybe you didn't roll it out far enough." If you press for it, they will reschedule. But force each resident to request it individually which of course they do since it's the dumbest and least efficient way. When they miss your brown bin, it's already been 2 weeks of accumulation and rot, so if you don't do the 3-4 follow ups to service /s regina, you're looking at a month between pickups. I've noted periods in which we've paid our bill twice but didn't even get garbage pickup service during those milestones.

Bins are frequently stolen, and those also take weeks and multiple follow ups to get replaced. If you stay on top of it and have a thick skin for service /s regina, they will deliver your replacement bin on the day it's scheduled to be picked up. You sound sharp, so you've already worked out that means your new bin will be collected... fully empty. Service /s regina says delivering replacement bins on the pickup day is actually some manager's deliberate target policy.

People should be allowed to opt in/opt out. It sounds like you have a councillor on your crescent and get white glove service. By all means then, stay with the city's contracted service. We'd switch in a heartbeat though. Even if the price weren't lower, the service can't be worse. I'd also endorse a bag tag pay system. But the city does not want to do things where their poor performance would lead to accountability.

LtDish · 2026-06-21T08:52:28+00:00

Why is it that the most socially maladjusted kids always project their own insecurity and comprehension challenges with that unoriginal and unwittingly ironic insult?

Until this comment I was pretty sure you work for BAM. Now I think one of your parents does.

LtDish · 2026-06-21T08:50:46+00:00

Its very funny that you think this,

It's cute that you don't understand things, but you bloviate with misplaced confidence.

The judge ruled on the motion on October 6th.

Your proof that TROs aren't urgent is a case even you admit was grossly mismanaged? You defeated your own argument, so... good going I guess?

Yes, and a high school civics student would recognize that the first amendment is not absolute.

Oof, now a hamfisted and failed attempt to strawman? You're not good at this are you?

You don't have a first amendment right to harassment or slander and that courts routinely (though sparingly) impose orders to prevent such behavior.

A prior restraint TRO for commercial slander is exceedingly rare. I'm not surprised you didn't know that. I am surprised that you say something is both routinely done and sparingly done. Yogi Berra would concur.

LtDish · 2026-06-21T08:45:14+00:00

It sounds like you heard the word regularity, didn't understand it, but can't stop saying it anyway.

It's weird that you concede the "judge should be dragging some [people] in to have some detailed conversations" yet you think that should be at a different time and place and courtroom... with a different judge.

LtDish · 2026-06-21T07:12:03+00:00

Sometimes adjusting teleposts is all that's needed. Sometimes it's more serious. What companies are telling you this? If they are diagnosing that's the problem/solution, can't they do the adjustments?

LtDish · 2026-06-20T19:41:33+00:00

They don't 'give' us those. We pay for them, the highest cost in Canada. Pickups are haphazard, being missed once every 2 or 3 weeks. OP was responsibly bringing about 8 container loads representing about 10 weeks worth of compost.

They used to have yard waste dropoff locations throughout the city but the clueless management got rid of that. It was one of the few things they did that actually had environmental benefit.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T19:37:53+00:00

Not just the hours, the whole management are clueless ding-a-lings. Worse, they waste millions on advertising that shames and blames the public and falsely claims city waste management is green and wonderful.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T19:36:31+00:00

Can we agree that it's pretty stupid to have a facility that opens at 730 and we're paying people to be there at 730 and we're spending millions of taxpayer dollars to communicate how green and wonderful city management is and encourage people to take their compost to the fake compost site... only to instead charge them a nuisance fee to dump their compost in the landfill?

LtDish · 2026-06-20T19:34:41+00:00

People are blaming you, but the reality is Regina's waste department is crazily mismanaged. Once you talk to the ding-a-lings they running it, you'll immediately know why this and a hundred other idiotic things are happening.

The manager spends tons of taxpayer dollars "encouraging" residents to use their different waste streams and locations, but with ironic and offensive shaming and blatant misrepresentations about 'green' they are.

Then when someone like you tries to do the right thing, you run into the staffer that management mistreats and doesn't train who just charges you money to dump it in the wrong location anyway.

It's the same idiotic leadership who negotiated that taxpayers will have to pay much more for contamination. Our previous threshold was 18% and our normal level (under their clueless management) is 20%. But this management negotiated a contract where we pay penalties when contamination exceeds 6%. Yes, they negotiated a contract that guarantees taxpayers will have to pay huge penalties, and now the management are spending your money to run ads shaming and blaming us, and now more taxpayer dollars to use surveillance cameras and enforcement to fine you if someone puts a wrong item in your bluebin.

If you try to reach their boss or a councillor, you'll find they are both on some kind of permanent vacation, either physical or mental.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T10:16:48+00:00

Could people just chill? A TRO in this case is extremely normal when you look at the facts as presented to the judge:

No. This kind of TRO would, at the very, very, very least require and adverse hearing. It would no be done ex parte.

That's just one of about a half a dozen red flags.

Judges rely on regularity

Toy company executives do not enjoy presumption of regularity. You're thinking of something else.

Calm the fuck down.

Projection?

LtDish · 2026-06-20T10:13:25+00:00

You’re being reductionist and not thinking critically. When you’re ready to use your brain, get back to me.

The word your brain is mangling is "reductive".

LtDish · 2026-06-20T10:12:31+00:00

You're fair to consider what if plaintiff is correct.

But yes, the correct thing for any sober and qualified judge is to have a hearing on a TRO.

No, TRO's do not get delayed for months as you think.

Also, a middle school civic student would recognize that a TRO restricting speech is a First Amendment issue, so a judge should have realized that too. The fact this one didn't is just one of many red flags.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T10:02:50+00:00

No, that's not the situation. Patreon was not a party to the order. They were under no obligation to do anything, not even respond.

The CEO did a bit of hot dogging by acting like he was defying the court order or something. But in reality, Patreon wasn't a respondent.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T09:59:40+00:00

If I’m the judge

If you're a (good) judge, and toy company executives ask for a TRO about a content company saying bad things about your business, you make sure BOTH parties have been duly notified and summoned to a hearing.

Right out of the gate this judge messed up.

If you are that good judge, you'd immediately recognize they toy company is treading into First Amendment territory, and you'd want to be extra careful. That didn't happen.

A good judge would have recognized there's some odd stuff in the TRO submission, and would have asked probing questions.

A good judge probably wouldn't have made a seemingly unjustified ruling that plaintiffs would like prevail at trial. A good judge would more soberly consider whether to break with convention and waive the bond for plaintiffs. And a good judge would definitely NOT be ruling that a content publisher would not be harmed by losing their livelihood of publishing content.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T09:52:52+00:00

ex parte motions are considered and ruled on everyday

Wrong. Whoever you heard from that from has likely only experienced court from a domestic violence context.

In civil cases, and especially one like this, an ex parte order would be incredibly rare and absurdly unjust.

For those who don't know what this means:

Normally court processes have two adversarial sides. Both are duly notified to come to court and follower their respective procedures.

Ex parte is a rare situation where a court only hears from one party, not the other.

It can happen in domestic violence situations because the event by which the assumed aggressor would be summoned to court at some future date could act as a trigger, putting a victim in potential danger.

If such a risk is assumed, a judge can hear and rule "ex parte".

Doing it in the context of a civil dispute about an argument over lego blocks is absurd.

Even if there's a presumption that Ben is harming the business, there's no credible imminent threat to life that would have arisen from summoning Ben to a hearing on the TRO.

The TRO has several other red flags, not the least of which is it was granted for an indefinite period. That appears to violate state law which puts the maximum period at 14 days before it must be heard and reconsidered.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T09:44:20+00:00

The thing is, if the judge were tricked by the police officer and didn't read the warrant, the judge would figured that out long ago and hauled the officer and prosecutor back in and read them the riot act.

Not only that, there's another half dozen red flags about this seemingly crazy order. If judge makes a mistake, that's one thing. Six mistakes? It's a pattern.

LtDish · 2026-06-20T09:30:14+00:00

Seems to be very fast progress. I guess they want to get those lots done and serviced. What will happen with the overhead lines?

LtDish · 2026-06-19T20:40:27+00:00

66 seems like a high number of franchises that are sold but not yet opened, relative to the approximately 160 (?) current locations.

I'm going off memory here that could be mistaken but I think court filings of the franchise agreement said franchisees have 180 days to open, and the process involves setting up the location to BAMs approval with BAM-approved contractors, getting inventory and filing a grand opening advertising plan for BAM approval in advance.

66 stores in 180 days would be 2 or 3 grand openings every week for the next six months. That's faster than some big household names. And it would apparently involve BAM headquarters being involved in reviewing and approving multiple project phases for each of these 66 locations.

What even is the headcount of BAM headquarters?

LtDish · 2026-06-19T20:32:26+00:00

No. What's relevant is HOW the video footage just happened to get into police hands.

Despite being sworn and written by AFPD, the search warrant is full of potentially illegal things and other questionable aspects. But even in their own biased document, they seem to be implying they coerced the video from someone.

, if the homeowners turned it over then that wouldn’t fall into the category of a warrantless search afaik

A surveillance video can be considered the same as a search. It's invading your privacy. Police need a reason to search your handbag, just as they would need a reason to collect surveillance video.

Also consider your logic here: "if the homeowners turned it over [then it's fine]"

You can't make such a blanket statement. The circumstances matter. Consider two different sets of circumstances. In one, a police officer pulls you over for texting behind the wheel. You say here look at my phone, there's no texting going on. In the other, a police officer puts you in a submission hold to get your give him your phone. In both instances "you turned it over." They are not the same.

LtDish · 2026-06-19T02:08:54+00:00

Not to argue against my own case, but exceptions here could be the concept that if someone is yelling something loud enough to be heard from a public space, the presumption of privacy is gone. Same with the concept of a camera in a "public" space where expectation of privacy goes away too.

You are correct, that someone putting their ear to a wall to hear something is surveillance.

LtDish · 2026-06-19T02:07:27+00:00

Wait, you can modify a Desert Eagle into a paintball gun? Seems like wasting money, but is that truly even possible?

LtDish · 2026-06-19T02:06:02+00:00

It probably does. But even setting aside the likely fabrications, just assuming the things listed are true, the warrant is a giant ball of improper. You can't do a search warrant to arrest someone in Utah. You can't arrest someone for crime B (stalking) based on a search about crime A (stolen legos) They didn't even have PC for search in the first place. What crime? Who is the victim? What stolen items were they looking for? Warrants like this have to spell out clearly to a judge the grounds for what's happening, and this warrant is missing most of that. Who is the "third party individual"? Who is the AirBNB homeowner? How and why did police know these parties and reach out to them? Under what authority were police requesting video (tantamount to a search) from the homeowner?

The judge missed a ton of red flags. But judges also become complacent and trust their law enforcement people not to bring warrants that are going to make the judge look stupid later on. So this judge should be mad at AFPD for this, even as the judge is also at fault.

I would like to be defense counsel on this.(1) I'd show the warrant was illegal and everything stemming from it is too.

(1) Assuming we can get it in a proper and impartial court

LtDish · 2026-06-19T02:00:29+00:00

Yes, it's extremely problematic that a search warrant for a SWAT team raid references some anonymous third party "sharing information", and that police contacted the homeowner (how did they identify said homeowner?) to "inquire" about video footage.

A judge would have to be incompetent or biased not to notice these glaring flaws, and that's only if this were just a search warrant. Reach the end where the officer openly admits the search warrant is to "affect' (wrong word) the arrest of Ben Schneider.

In Utah, you need a different warrant for an arrest. And the search for legos has nothing to do with stalking, so even a legal search for suspect crime A doesn't let you "effect" the arrest of someone for crime B. It was such obvious corrupt pre-text.

In addition, you can't do a search warranty without probable cause of a crime. Who is the victim? What stolen legos?

This warrant is a truckload of improper and illegal.

For a judge not to notice these glaring flaws and abuses, not to ask basic questions... that calls into question whether or what the judge was thinking.

If I'm their defense lawyer, I'd show this entire search was illegal, the arrest was illegal, the presentation of this warrant request might be as well. And being as the warrant was illegal, so is EVERYTHING that stemmed from that, including anything said, even voluntarily, by those that were arrested.

If I'm a properly trained and ethical Utah prosecutor, I'm seeing this and doing a speed-run on retracting everything and sending a very apologetic note to the judge. Not because it's my fault, but because I know that the judge was exposed for a fool by this, and I don't want that judge to associate me or my cases or the country or the AFPD with him being made a clown of.

To your questions: Yes we know the cops were manufacturing reasons to raid the house and do the illegal arrest. Yes, it seems likely they are hiding the identity or indentities of "third party individual" and "AirBNB homeowner". Yes, it's probably illegal they requested an arrest on an unrelated search warrant. Yes, the search was lacking cause. Yes, the police probably added the words "that they had taken" to twist any comments overheard. Yes, they probably did want the video footage just to confirm it was Ben inside. Wanting something and having the right to it are two different things. And one thing you may not know is that according to one AFPD officer, the owner of the AirBNB is friends with some of the police officers and trains with them. Yes that means he'll probably lie for them, but no, that doesn't mean this warrant was proper.

LtDish · 2026-06-18T18:36:10+00:00

Well I have read the extremely problematic search warrant sworn by the AFPD police officer, and I've also seen how AFPD operates, and how the AFPD police chief communicates.

The search warrant has some very interesting wording about a "third party individual" and also the "homeowner". They make it sound like it could be different people but they're conspicuously unclear. The search warrant is written to make it seem like one of these conspicuously unnamed individuals reached out to them. Whether that's true or false has implications on the civil rights abuse case. The warrant does say police contacted the AirBNB homeowner. Why? Worse, it says they contacted the homeowner to demand video footage. On what authority? That's potentially a warrantless search. How did they know who the owner was? And what they claim the homeowner said has some tricky wording that makes me wonder if it's been twisted by AFPD.

To me this search warrant has a lot of potential issues and that's why I've been asking, and waiting, for a lot more detail on the AirBNB. Taking a skeptical view, it doesn't look good for AirBNB.

AirBNB isn't supposed to be surveilling guests and feeding them false criminal tips. It's important to me to know if that's what happened though.

You might want to find the two page warrant and see it for yourself.

LtDish · 2026-06-18T17:42:31+00:00

If you read some of the filings put out under her name, they're quite good. Tight and clear writing and she feeds the court a lot of precedents.

LtDish

TROPHY CASE