Mary Reynolds vs Rodney Bitten and Meghan Bitten – Response Filed Nov. 15, 2017

This is a follow up to this post:

Stay tuned because the real meat will be the Examinations for Discovery.  That’s when the truth comes out.

Well, that’s quite the defense.  They knew it was my land and yet when I told them in March 2016 to remove their garden and landscape ties they refused and yet they claim they never knowingly trespassed?  And this gem:  “…the Defendants started to frame a fence on what they believed to be their property.”  Why did they believe it was their property  when they have admitted knowing it was my land prior to putting in the garden?

Someone should have read this Response to Civil Claim before filing it because it contradicts what the Defendants knew.

Doesn’t like my blog and thinks I have assumed a righteous attitude.  Ouch – how will I ever recover from that?

No substance.



Who was trespassing on MY LAND today?

Was it large scurrying rats?  EDIT:  NO IT TURNS OUT IT MUST HAVE BEEN HUMANS!

NOTE: I was right.  Took this pic Saturday morning and sure enough there was definitely digging activity on MY LAND WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  The only permission granted to ANYONE is scheduled for Wed. Nov. 15, 2017.  ANYONE with a copy of the legal survey is well aware of the property lines and knows they are trespassing.

The soil was level with the horizontal ties visible in the picture prior to yesterday and there were ties stacked to the same height against MY garage.



Union Bay Improvement District Having Problems Abiding by Bylaw #270
How much is it going to cost YOU for UBID to post videos of the meetings?  This is turning into a money pit with these dolts running around trying to figure out how to prevent the public from recording the meetings and being clueless in the first place not understanding what they were dealing with.  The goal is to prevent information from reaching the landowners at any cost – and the cost of hosting their own videos is going to skyrocket.
If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to watch the Union Bay Improvement District meeting video recorded Oct. 12, 2017, it’s because they don’t know what they’re doing.  They approved a bylaw which states only UBID will record the meetings and post them on the UBID website.  That’s where they ran into trouble.  They had planned on posting the videos on Youtube which is a file sharing site where you must agree to allow Youtube and its users to use your videos.  Easy to understand, right?
These guys want to claim copyright and prevent anyone from using their videos.  That means they have to host their own videos.  This is where it’s going to cost the landowners a pretty penny needlessly.
The two articles below explain in easy to understand terms why you should never host your own videos and what is required claiming ‘fair use’ of copyrighted material.  Note this from the ‘fair use’ article – parody, criticism…:

Your use doesn’t necessarily have to be “transformative” to qualify for fair use (although it definitely helps). Any use that furthers the public interest could potentially tip this factor in your direction. Parody, criticism, news reporting, scholarship, and commentary are all areas where courts have traditionally recognized fair use.

With that as background, here are ten reasons you should never upload video files to your own web server — particularly if your site is hosted on a shared server.

1.Server Bandwidth

Video files can be quite large in size. Unlike images—which are typically measured in kilobytes—an HD video file can easily weigh in at more than 100 MB. Now, imagine what will happen to your shared hosting server when dozens of folks attempt to watch the same video at the same time.

Your web hosting provider allocates a certain amount of bandwidth and other resources for each server on their network, based on average traffic rates that do not include serving large media files to hundreds of individuals (or more) at the same time. Too many requests for a single large file will quickly exceed the limits of the web server on which your site is hosted, and bring your site—and any other sites that also “live” on the same server—to its knees.

But you may never even get that far, because of…

2.File Size Limits and Storage Space

Most web hosting providers limit the maximum size of uploaded files to 50 MB or less, prohibiting you from uploading video files that are longer than a few minutes or so in duration. Additionally, large media files may violate the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy with your hosting provider and result in your hosting account being shut down.

If you’re able to upload large video files to your server on a frequent basis, you could eventually exceed the amount of storage space provided by your hosting account, especially if you regularly back up your site. In addition to the amount of disk space your video files will occupy, backups will begin to take significantly longer to execute. More data requires more disk space, and takes more time to backup.

3.Slow-Loading or Freezing Video

If your video file resides on a single server with a limited amount of bandwidth, folks who attempt to watch your video may experience unexpected pauses during playback while their computer waits for the file to download or stream to their computer. This problem is compounded by a slow Internet connection. Even when I hosted my videos on Amazon’s S3 content distribution network (CDN), many people still complained about slow-loading videos.

4.No Single File Format Standard for Web Video

The current HTML5 draft specification does not specify which video formats browsers should support. As a result, the major web browsers have diverged, each one supporting a different format. Internet Explorer and Safari will play H.264 (MP4) videos, but not WebM or Ogg. Firefox will play Ogg or WebM videos, but not H.264. Thankfully, Chrome will play all the major video formats, but if you want to ensure your video will play back on all the major web browsers, you’ll have to convert your video into multiple formats: .mp4, .ogv, and .webm

Now you’ve got three different video files to upload, each one potentially hundreds of megabytes in size.

(By the way, just how much bandwidth does your Internet provider allow you to use before imposing bandwidth caps? You may soon find out after you’ve uploaded several gigabytes of video files.)

5.Hope you like converting videos. A lot.

Most of your audience will likely watch your videos from their desktop or laptop with the benefit of a high-speed Internet connection. For those folks, you’ll want to deliver a large, HD-quality file so they can watch it full-screen if they so choose. Generally, this means a 1080p or 720p file at a high streaming bitrate (5000 – 8000 kbps).

But you’ll also want to encode a smaller, lower-resolution version for delivery to mobile devices like phones and tablets, as well as delivery to viewers with slower Internet connections.

Now you’ve got half a dozen or more individual video files for playback on all the major web browsers and devices. But how does your site know which of those files to serve to each person?

6.Video Players

A video player is a small piece of web software you install on your site that will automatically detect which device is requesting your video, along with its connection speed, and then deliver the appropriate version to that person.

There are dozens of excellent video players that will handle this task (like Video.js), but WordPress also includes a built-in video player that will eliminate the need for a third-party video plugin. That’s great news! But it gets a bit tricky…

7.Cumbersome Code [or Shortcodes]

Whether you use a third-party plugin or WordPress’ built-in video capabilities, you’ll need to create a bit of code to tell the video player which formats you’ve created, as well as their location on the server. It looks something like this…

<video poster="movie.jpg" controls>
<source src="movie.webm" type='video/webm; codecs="vp8.0, vorbis"'/>
<source src="movie.ogg" type='video/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis"'/>
<source src="movie.mp4" type='video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4D401E, mp4a.40.2"'/>
<p>This is fallback content</p>

Even with the built-in support for video in WordPress, you’ll still need to construct a shortcode like this…

So now you’ve correctly assembled your shortcode, uploaded all the video files to your server, and you’ve installed a video player to handle all the “behind the scenes” detection and such. So after all this, why does your video look so much better in some browsers/devices than others?

8.Varying Quality Across Browsers

Remember earlier, when I said you’ll need to convert your videos into nearly half a dozen different formats and sizes? You’ll need a software app to handle this file conversion for you. There are hundreds of video conversion applications out there, and you may find that you need more than one to handle conversion into all the various format.

Unfortunately, every app handles the conversion process in a slightly different way, resulting in varying quality in your video files. Your video may look great as an MP4, but when you view the OGG file in Firefox, your video looks grainy or bitmapped.

Further complicating this issue, each web browser also handles playback differently, which means the exact same video file will look great in one browser, but horrible in another. I spent countless hours experimenting with the settings in my conversion software, but I never got this dialed in 100%.

9.Loss of Visibility and Traffic

YouTube is the most popular video hosting platform in the world. More importantly, they’re also one of the first places many folks turn when they’re searching for a topic. When you host your video on a third-party site like YouTube or Vimeo, you also benefit from their popularity, and folks could find your video—and subsequently, your own site—who otherwise wouldn’t have known your site existed.

Plus, the social sharing features on those services encourage other folks to share your video with their friends and family, increasing your reach.


If you’re running a membership site with protected video content (like this site), you’ll want to ensure your video files can’t be downloaded by some nefarious individual and then redistributed illegally on file sharing sites.

I discovered this vulnerability the hard way, and spent the better part of a year sending DMCA takedown notices to file sharing sites, over and over again.

Because the video paths are easily exposed in the source code, anyone can simply copy the URLs, then download the videos to their own computer and redistribute at will. I found a script that obfuscated the video paths, but it wasn’t updated often, and eventually stopped working with my video player.

(BTW, one of the many reasons I use and recommend Vimeo PRO is that you can hide your videos from their public directory, and also specify a particular domain on which the video may be embedded. This ensures your videos can only be embedded on your own site.)

So what’s the best solution for adding video to your site?

Simply upload your video to a video hosting service, then embed your video into your WordPress post or page.


What do the four fair use factors mean?

Kensington Island Properties and Union Bay Improvement District Water Agreement

Here we go again folks.  Water treatment facility will be built by UBID and will accommodate roughly 800 connections (we presently use approx. 670).  When KIP comes on board KIP will pay for the second plant.  The 4 acres for the permanent water treatment facility will be provided to UBID by Dec. 31, 2017.

The Fire Hall land suffered more shrinkage tonight.  It’s gone from 4 acres to 3 acres and now it’s 2.2 acres.  KIP has 2 years to turn this piece of land over to UBID.

Agreement gives KIP 60 – 100 residential units.

The gong show disease reared it’s ugly head again tonight when Freedom of Information requests were discussed.  To sit and listen to someone just completely bullshit their way expecting everyone to swallow the crap and then insist that UBID’s bylaws could over rule the Freedom of Information just leaves me shaking my head.  Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence when you hear flaky alternative facts.  This is the UBID bylaw they believe trumps Freedom of Information legislation.

The Admin reads out the letter regarding the mistakes the Admin has made regarding the FOI and does nothing with it.  The landowner sent this FOI months ago and that’s how they dealt with it.  Training, training, training.

The Admin charged a landowner for 4 hours of work at $50./hr to retrieve in camera minutes from June and July 2017.  What the hell could have taken him 4 hours?  Plus, he charged the landowner after the fact.  4 hours?????  Plus, you can’t charge anyone for the first 3 hours according to the FOI fees below.

It’s history repeating itself.  Pre April 2011, the board thought if they voted on something – that made it legal.  Now these brainiacs believe they can make up bylaws that will over ride Federal and Provincial legislation.

According to the knowitall the following stipulations don’t apply to Union Bay.  Another example of the lack of training with this board and admin.  They will only learn by stumbling/bumbling around doing a half assed job and complaining about it.  You’d think they didn’t know how to read.

Even after they are informed the Administrator does not have to be the ‘Head’ and a trustee offers to be the ‘Head’ they continue to use the excuse they can’t respond to FOI’s unless they can charge per bylaw 223 insisting it takes time away from the Admin.  Another example of their fear information will be released which exposes what has transpired.

See Part 6 General Provisions. #75 Fees

This Act is current to September 13, 2017
See the Tables of Legislative Changes for this Act’s legislative history, including any changes not in force.


[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 165



75  (1) The head of a public body may require an applicant who makes a request under section 5 to pay to the public body fees for the following services:

(a) locating, retrieving and producing the record;

(b) preparing the record for disclosure;

(c) shipping and handling the record;

(d) providing a copy of the record.

(2) An applicant must not be required under subsection (1) to pay a fee for

(a) the first 3 hours spent locating and retrieving a record, or

(b) time spent severing information from a record.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a request for the applicant’s own personal information.

(4) If an applicant is required to pay a fee for services under subsection (1), the head of the public body

(a) must give the applicant a written estimate of the total fee before providing the service, and

(b) may require the applicant to pay a deposit in the amount set by the head of the public body.

(5) If the head of a public body receives an applicant’s written request to be excused from paying all or part of the fees for services, the head may excuse the applicant if, in the head’s opinion,

(a) the applicant cannot afford the payment or for any other reason it is fair to excuse payment, or

(b) the record relates to a matter of public interest, including the environment or public health or safety.

(5.1) The head of a public body must respond under subsection (5) in writing and within 20 days after receiving the request.

(6) The fees that prescribed categories of applicants are required to pay for services under subsection (1) may differ from the fees other applicants are required to pay for them, but may not be greater than the actual costs of the services.

When I asked the question as to who was the “Head” appointed by UBID to handle FOI requests – 3 trustees and the Admin didn’t have a clue what I was talking about.  It proves these people have not bothered reading or educating themselves on their duties and responsibilities.  Two of the trustees have been in the position for over a year and are just as clueless as the day they were elected.  The following is page 55 from the Improvement District Manual.

Talking about new families moving in with kids and jobs being available.  In what universe is he living?   Again, does this person realize KIP can’t build anything until he has a sewage treatment facility?  Even McMahon stated you can’t have one without the other – water and sewage.  No septic fields allowed on any of the KIP land.

The strange happenings with Bylaw 264.  For those of you who don’t know about this bylaw, it was passed at the March 2016 UBID meeting and then the Ministry sent it back with some minor changes and provided an example.  The board complied and the Bylaw was reconsidered and approved at the June 2016 UBID meeting.  Jacques and Loxam were against this bylaw even before they were elected because they said it discouraged development due to the MMIC Platinum standard and the 125% surety.  It has been explained to them many times that there no longer is a Gold Standard and it is now Platinum.  They both objected to the 125% surety because they claimed Crown Isle didn’t require that amount.

My only guess is that in that old bylaw KIP wanted (Bylaw 170 and now has thanks to his boys) there is something he can use to his advantage.  Bylaw 264 was 2 years of work by the previous Administrator Kevin Douville consolidating and updating the bylaw.  Now those in control don’t know why they oppose the bylaw – just that they do and I have a good idea who is instructing their every move.  They wouldn’t even consider setting it aside and working on it in the future – they insisted on killing it.

And to top it all off, they video recorded the meeting but when I asked if they were putting it on Youtube the Administrator could not answer.  He has to speak to the webmaster and they are going to figure something out.  Asked when the video would be up and no time was given.  Again, these guys don’t want you to know what’s going on.

Didn’t I say they couldn’t put it on Youtube if they claim copyright protection?  It’s only taken them 5 months to clue in.

They claim they are too busy for FOI requests and can’t answer correspondence and yet they have all the time in the world screwing around with the video recording, spending money on a Go Pro camera, figuring out where they are going to post it and learning how to post it.

For these tools to learn anything they have to be force fed because they assume they don’t need to know anything other than their opinions.

Luckily, a landowner recorded the audio.



Kensington Island Properties aka 34083 Yukon Inc., Like George Costanza, Suffers Shrinkage – Again!

The shrinking golf course, the shrinking/disappearing promises and now the shrinking land for the Fire Hall.

For those of us paying attention, the community was told in April 2011 that Kensington Island Properties $1.9 Million dollar Water Infrastructure Agreement was a GIFT to the community.  The amount decreased over the years and last count it was $1.2 Million.  Shrinkage.

Then in 2016 one of the trustees who took credit for negotiating the deal admitted the money was an “interest free loan”.   Shrinkage.

I didn’t dream up the 4 acre figure Kensington Island Properties VP McMahon has been throwing out there for a fire hall all these years.

Here’s McMahon in July 2011 mere months after signing the 2011 Water Infrastructure Agreement stating 4 acres.

Here’s McMahon at his March 2016 meeting again stating 4 acres.

Here’s McMahon’s own words June 7, 2016 stating 4 acres.

Here’s the last 2 pages of the July 27, 2017 UBID board meeting and low and behold now it’s down to 3 acres.  SHRINKAGE!

More Proof Union Bay Improvement District is Not Being Transparent or Honest With Landowners

This is an excerpt of part three of the July 27, 2017 UBID board meeting discussing the costs related to building a permanent water treatment facility on the land up by Langley Lake.

For all the times these people have thrown out ridiculous amounts without ANY RESEARCH about the cost to even get to this piece of property have been from $500,000 to $700,000.  They have stated the road must be brought up to highway standards and again their statements are based on whatever they have been told.  They have done zero research.

I have been told the estimate for the road work to the treatment site at the highway was between $40,000 to $80,000 and that was negotiable.

Remember when candidate Ted Haraldson told the community it would cost $500,000. each for pressure reducing valves if we built on the land by Langley Lake?  Absolutely wrong! Ted also claimed the site was a swamp.

I suspect the figures these guys spout come right from the lips of Brian McMahon, VP. Kensington Island Properties aka 34083 Yukon Inc.

This is an excerpt from KIP’s own consultants report Feb. 1 2008.  So why is KIP so opposed to UBID building a permanent water treatment facility on the very piece of property identified in the report?

If there had been a piece of land suitable within the KIP development, it would have been mentioned in this report.  The report already states the existing location does not provide adequate pressure – and we’re not increasing the elevation by going across McLeod Rd at Musgrave.



%d bloggers like this: