Revision history (UTC/major.minor.patch, in reverse chronological order): 20141218T002035Z/version 2.0.0 (revised, adding discussion of a few points, most notably of Satyagraha; uploaded to public server), 20141216T162316Z/version 1.0.0 (wrote base version, without making upload to public server).

1. Background

Upon becoming the subject of a pair of legal initiatives by Karen Cilevitz and her counsel Jason (Lloydovitch) Cherniak in the spring of 2014, I retained the lawyer Ms Iris Fischer at Blake, Cassels, & Graydon LLP.

I finished my legal work with Blake's in mid-2014. Poor though I am - new clothes not affordable; no car; basement apartment furnished to a significant extent with items-from-trash or items-made-by-self; groceries put together with a degree of ingenuity, as when one rescues spilled apples from a public roadway, or gets the coffee, the peanuts, the raisins, the chocolate from Dollarama - I nevertheless paid off the last of my bills to Blake's in September of 2014. This payment brought an end to our (happy and fruitful) solicitor-client relationship.

Jason Lloydovitch launched a fresh initiative through Blake's on 2014-12-12, writing Ms Fischer under the misleading impression that she still represented me.

His letter of 2014-12-12 calls for a reply from me. In the interest of transparency, and above all of Satyagraha (Section 8 of this letter, "Concluding Remarks C"), I publish the reply on my Web space http://www.karen-vs-toomas-blog.ca/, and in due course bring it also to the notice of the Law Society of Upper Canada, of the Attorney General, and of the York Regional Police.

2. Open Letter
to Jason Lloydovitch Cherniak

Universal Coordinated Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20141218T002035Z

Dear Jason,  

0. Preamble

Thank you for your expression of concern in a letter to my
former counsel Ms. Iris Fischer, of Blake, Cassells,
& Graydon LLP, on 2014-12-12: 

    Dear Iris,
    As you may already know, Karen Cilevitz was elected
    to council in Richmond Hill.  Since her election,
    Mr. Karmo has been sending various communications
    saying that she has "attacked him legally", which
    I consider contrary to the agreement between the two.
    He has also sent out a supposed academic paper –
    which seems to be gibberish to me – including the
    names of Karen and David Bronskill (the lawyer at
    Goodman’s who represents Corsica/Metrus at the OMB)
    as co-authors.  It is attached.
    I'm not sure what exactly is running through
    Mr. Karmo’s head, but I would appreciate it if
    you could please contact him and remind him that he
    is not allowed to refer to the lawsuit other than
    to refer people to the minutes of settlement.  I am
    also concerned that his "paper" might be a sign
    of something that goes beyond defamation.  Karen is
    prepared to take legal action again if necessary,
    but I'm hoping that you might get through to him
    as a person he trusts without a formal letter from
    me to him.

1. I Am Longer Represented by Any Lawyer

Ms Fischer of Blake's, though an excellent lawyer
from an excellent firm, does not now represent me. I
cannot afford lawyers these days. I plan instead to
go straight to court, saving money for food and rent
by representing myself. (Admittedly, if some lawyer
were to offer to work on my case pro bono, I might
take up the offer.  But no such offer is in prospect.)

2. I Take Precautions, as an Autistic Individual

In the absence of a lawyer to help me, I take what
precautions I can.

I plan to be in the next few days putting myself, as
an autistic individual, onto the York Regional Police
(YRP) "Registry of Vulnerable Persons".

Additionally, I am maintaining a liaison with YRP
through Sergeant Chris Palmer (Constable 920, with
email "920 at yrp dot ca": in any correspondence with
Sergeant Palmer, you should cite the Cilevitz-Karmo file,
number 14-307084).

I am recommending to Sergeant Palmer that he take a
neutral stance on the dispute between me and Karen.
At the same time, I do take care to brief him of
anything that might be regarded as harassment.
My latest briefing for Sergeant Palmer, regarding
my protest action with placards and fliers at the
2014-12-01 meeting of Town Council, will serve you
as a conveniently vivid example of the approach I
am taking:

        I demonstrated with placards and handouts, but (under
        direction of Clerks, with whose standpoints on public
        order I concurred) no candle and no music.  I had a
        chest placard saying "Save DDO Forest" and a large
        against-wall placard saying "Dare to Conserve all
        77 DDO Hectares", and I had a two-sided monochrome
        handout /.../
        I was pleased to have been greeted immediately upon
        arrival by plainclothes officers Wright and Kolarsky,
        and to have had an opportunity to brief them on the
        DDO heritage-conservation
        case. /.../ 
        I had not expected significant unpleasantness during my
        civic action, and indeed there was none. I mention here only
        for completeness the exceedingly minor events that did occur:
        * two separate private approaches
          to me in the foyer from the husband, Ralph Cilevitz,
          of Councillor Cilevitz, with his calling me "disgusting"
          during both approaches
          (this is a repetition of the private verbal attack he made
          in the street, on the election hustings, in October,
          when he likewise called me "disgusting"; it would
          be wrong for me to make much further ado about this)
        * a private approach to me in the foyer
          from one of Councillor Cilevitz's son Adam,
          asserting what is technically a libel, namely that
          I am under a "restraining order" (when in reality
          Councillor Cilevitz, having attacked me legally in March,
          then settled OUT of court; although I believe that Adam
          Cilevitz continued asserting, to me and others
          that a "restraining order" existed even after I had
          apprised him of the administrative facts, it would
          be wrong for me to make much further ado about this)
        I recommend that these various events be considered too minor
        to warrant anything beyond a note-to-file/.../ 

My principal precaution in all this work is to lay
out our case on the public Web, omitting no relevant
facts (not even omitting - full disclosure seems
to me a necessary, although not by itself a sufficient,
condition for Satyagraha - facts injurious to
my case). In that way, when or if our case goes to trial,
and I represent myself in the courtroom, the court
will have something to go by even should I break down
from the stress of speaking. 

Additionally, my full and objective use of the Web
will assist the Crown, if at any stage the Crown
feels that Karen Cilevitz has crossed the line from
mere discourtesy (discourtesy is her right, under
Canadian free-speech law) into some offence or other.

I am not very interested in criminal law, but I
do have to give the Crown everything it needs to
satisfy its own legitimate curiosity. At the moment,
of course, you are pressing your own arguments
on a basis that is either entirely or at any rate
predominantly grounded in civil, as opposed to criminal,
law. The Crown comes into this work at the moment in
only a low-key way, through low-key alerts from me
to the Attorney General.

I likewise make low-key alerts to the Law Society of
Upper Canada, as a precaution against the hypothetical
contingency that you have yourself somehow (for all
I know) strayed, or will in future find yourself
tempted to start straying, into malpractice (as when
a plaintiff's lawyer starts - I write here 
in hypotheticals - intimidating a defendant).

I imagine that for the time being the Attorney General
and the Law Society teams will be filing my alerts
without taking action. I imagine them to be contenting
themselves for the time being with an application
of the ancient Roman-law precept "The law does not
concern itself with trivia."

3. My Language "Legal Attack" not Tortious (Fair-Comment Defence)

I have in material quoted above used "legal attack",
or a close variant thereon, in referring to Karen's
2014 legal actions, and I may well likewise have
used "legal attack" or a close variant thereon in
publications - perhaps, for example, somewhere in
my numerous postings to the online Richmond Hill
community newspaper _The Liberal_. But I believe all such 
language to be covered by the "Fair Comment" defence
in defamation law.

I form my belief on the basis that (a)
"legal attack", "legal assault", and the like, with
variations thereon (for instance, "has attacked
me legally") are often used, by writers of good
contemporary journalistic English, simply as a synonym
for "lawsuit", and that (b) I was intending nothing
more than conformity with this common journalistic

I illustrate the usage with three examples, from Web
sites of special journalistic eminence:

(1) From 

        In the latest legal assault on the
        nation's most popular sport, former
        professional athletes are accusing the
        National Football League of illegally
        pushing players to take risky narcotics
        that masked serious injuries and turned
        some athletes into drug addicts. The
        allegations come in a lawsuit filed
        today /.../  

(2) From 

        Gene Patents Under Legal Attack 
        Federal court hearings continued
        Tuesday on a lawsuit that could
        transform biotechnology in the United
        States by eliminating gene patents. /.../ 

(3) From 

        In a novel legal attack on a state's
        same-sex marriage ban, a liberal
        Protestant denomination on Monday filed
        a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina
        is unconstitutionally restricting
        religious freedom by barring clergy
        members from /.../  

4. My References to Cilevitz Legal Attacks Comply with Settlement

It may be argued that although my use of the phrase
"legal attack", or variants thereon, is not in and of
itself tortious, nevertheless my use of it or them,
to advert to the fact of a lawsuit, breaches the
Minutes of Settlement signed by Karen and me in 2014.

But this argument, although more circumspect than
the argument that "legal attack" is in its own right
tortious, likewise errs.

The sole relevant clause in our Minutes of Settlement
restricting our freedom to comment is one which
bars us from commenting on the settlement terms.
Since I am barred from quoting in part from
the Minutes of Settlement (I am allowed to
quote only in full), I simply remark here that
the full Minutes are available on my Web space
http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca/, and I ask
you and other readers (very notably, our readers at
the Attorney General's offices and at the Law Society
of Upper Canada) to refer there to the full Minutes.

Even this more circumspect argument, I reiterate,
errs: and I now add that its error is twofold.

(a) In referring to the fact of a lawsuit, I am
not commenting on the contents of the Minutes of

Here is an analogy, to make the conceptual point
clear.  In referring to the fact that the Toronto
Maple Leafs played the Boston Bruins, one is not in
that mere action divulging the score.

Here is some additional explanation, to help make the
conceptual point vivid.  To comment on the contents of
the Minutes of Settlement would be to say something to
the effect that the settlement is good, or that it is
bad, or that it is clear, or that is unclear, or that
it bars Karen and me from further court proceedings,
or that it leaves Karen and me the option of further
court proceedings. That is what "comment" means.

There has, I stress, been no "comment", whether from
me or from Karen.

(b) But adequate precedent for referring to the
fact of a lawsuit (were it to be, admittedly
contrary-to-fact, necessary to cite a precedent)
has been set by Karen herself, in her 2014-08-02
essay entitled "Response to online comments by
Toomas Karmo regarding Karen Cilevitz", and served
out both on her Facebook page and on her Web space

For convenience of all readers, I reproduce that essay
in full, with some duly flagged annotations of my own,
as an appendix to this present letter from me to you.

For the moment, it suffices merely to pick out one
passage, out of several in that essay, in which Karen
establishes a precedent for referring (as she has
every right to refer) to the fact of a lawsuit:

        I have /.../ had to take legal
        action against him [sc Toomas Karmo]
        to reclaim my
        name, website and protect my name,
        my identity, my character and my

5. Karmo-Cilevitz-Bronskill "Paper" Was Spoof in Private Correspondence

I have to very respectfully and gently and in
a kindly way advise - Jason, please try not to take offence 
here - that it is not right of you, working as a lawyer operating
with points of law, to bring up the matter of the
spoof paper "A Case for Online Algorithms" (purporting to
be a research result in computer science published by
"Toomas Karmo, Karen Cilevitz and David Bronskill"). 

This paper is generated by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology spoof tool "SCIGen", available at 
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/. The tool is 
further described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen. 

I say it is incorrect of you to bring up this matter
because I circulated the paper only in a pair
of private communications, at UTC=20141202T1549Z
to three friends, and at UTC=20141202T1611Z to a
further friend.

My covering letter to all four friends read as follows:

        Universal Coordinated Time (= UTC =
        EST+5 = EDT+4): 20141202T154131Z
        Excellent news - Councillor Karen
        Cilevitz (the first signatory to the
        Ontario Municipal Board Minutes of
        Settlement providing for 14 streets
        and 531 units of housing at the David
        Dunlap Observatory; she took her oath
        of office last night, while I watched
        from a balcony seat at the Richmond
        Hill Centre for the Performing Arts),
        David Bronskill (the lawyer for Metrus
        Development Inc, who is proposing this
        particular residential subdivision),
        and I have found common ground,
        working in computer science. Some
        initial results are attached, as a
        PDF of our paper "A Case for Online
        Algorithms". Where politics divides,
        science unites.
        Do please forward as appropriate to
        anyone who may find this particular
        scientific contribution helpful.
        Hastily, having soon to return to
        change-of-variables and Jacobian
        determinants, and also to run various
        errands in Toronto, and to pop into
        HackLab down on Queen Street,

Evidently this paper somehow got to Karen, even though
it had the nature of a chat-among-friends. 

I do add for completeness that I advertised
the existence of the paper on the blog
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ of
Maryland-based social commentator John Michael
Greer. On 2014-11-26, Mr Greer published a
posting entitled "Dark Age America: The Suicide of
Science". This start-of-thread posting attracted
around 203 comment, or continuation-of-thread,
postings from around the world, the two brief relevant
portions of which I reproduce here:

    Dagnarus said...

    Have you heard of SCIgen. It
    is computer program which is
    designed to make nonsense comp
    sci papers. At least 120 papers
    generated by this computer program
    have been accepted by Springer/IEEE
    journals. While not the hard
    sciences itself it seems to me to
    be at least indicative. Here is
    the link to the wikipedia page,
    and the program itself.



    If you read some of the program's
    output it does not look at all
    convincing. /.../ 

    12/1/14, 5:56 AM


    Toomas (Tom) Karmo said...

    Thank you, Dagnarus (your posting,

    On the strength of Dagnarus's
    provided tool, I have just
    made an initial mailing from my
    desk. In this first instance, I am
    communicating only with private
    friends, but I am pondering a
    communication also to our Mayor
    and Council.

    In my initial mailing, I write to
    my friends as follows:

        Universal Coordinated Time (= UTC =
        EST+5 = EDT+4): 20141202T154131Z
        Excellent news - Councillor Karen
        Cilevitz (the first signatory to
        the Ontario Municipal Board Minutes
        of Settlement providing for 14
        streets and 531 units of housing at
        the David Dunlap Observatory; she
        took her oath of office last night,
        while I watched from a balcony
        seat at the Richmond Hill Centre
        for the Performing Arts), David
        Bronskill (the lawyer for Metrus
        Development Inc, who is proposing
        this particular residential
        subdivision), and I have found
        common ground, working in computer
        science. Some initial results are
        attached, as a PDF of our paper "A
        Case for Online Algorithms". Where
        politics divides, science unites.
        Do please forward as appropriate to
        anyone who may find this particular
        scientific contribution helpful.
        Hastily, having soon to return to
        change-of-variables and Jacobian
        determinants, and also to run
        various errands in Toronto, and
        to pop into HackLab down on Queen

    Anyone needing a copy of the
    four-page PDF, "A Case for Online
    Algorithms" (Karmo, Cilevitz,
    Bronskill; bibliography cites
    among many other things 2001
    work by Bronskill and 2002 work
    by Cilevitz) should contact me

    Toomas (Tom) Karmo

    Toomas dot Karmo at gmail dot com

    12/2/14, 8:01 AM


As might have been predicted, nobody from John Michael
Greer's readership took up the suggestion to "contact
me privately" and request a copy of the paper. 
Further, as one might also well have predicted, I thought
it best not to follow through on my proposal to send
a copy of the paper "to our Mayor and Council". 

I also have to remark, once again gently and
with great respect and in the hope that you
will not take offence, that it is a bit unexpected
of you to write of this paper, "seems
to be gibberish to me". How can a paper which cites an
October 2004 conference presentation by "A.Einstein",
and which contains among other gems the clause
"we measured ROM space as a function of tape drive
throughput on a Nintendo Gameboy", SEEM to you to be
gibberish? When we watch Monty Python discussing
the dead, defunct, extinct parrot, now departed
to join the great celestial avian chorus, does the
screenwriter's ever-so-manifest intent 
merely SEEM to us to be comedic?

I am additionally puzzled by your language "I am
/.../ concerned that his 'paper' might be a sign
of something that goes beyond defamation." Are you
suggesting some civil tort more serious than the two
classic torts-of-defamation (on the one hand slander,
on the other hand libel)? Are you suggesting not
a civil (i.e., a tortious), but a criminal, delict? 
Or are you (this interpretation is to some mild degree
supported by your phrasing "sign of") offering,
perhaps with a degree of sympathetic solicitude, a
medical diagnosis - i.e., offering a hypothesis of
relevant psychiatric infirmity?

If you wish to pursue the matter of this paper
further, it would be a contribution to Satyagraha
(section 8, "Concluding Remarks C", below) to clarify
the just-cited language. If your intention is indeed
one of kindly solicitude, it would be good to make
this fact explicit.  

Finally (concluding my case for the irrelevance
of this paper to legal proceedings), I note that
one of my four original readers quickly replied
with a SCIgen-created paper of his own, under the
names of Einstein (as first author), Karmo (I was,
alas, demoted to mere second author), and Newton.
It suffices here to quote its patently and unmistakably
incoherent abstract  -

        The essential unification of
        agents and Lamport clocks
        has explored superpages,
        and current trends suggest
        that the exploration of online
        algorithms will soon emerge. In
        fact, few cryptographers
        would disagree with the
        improvement of information
        retrieval systems, which
        embodies the technical
        principles of e-voting
        technology. NuclealPorch,
        our new methodology for lambda
        calculus, is the solution to
        all of these obstacles. This
        is essential to the success of
        our work.

- and then to remark that in the bibliography,
the first reference is to a 2001 paper with
the patently and unmistakably absurd title
""Decoupling IPv6 from massive multiplayer online
role-playing games in the transistor", by 
an author with the rather strongly 
comedic name "C. Darwin".

6. Concluding Remarks A: I Wish to Offer You
Coffee at My Place If You Prepare for Court Work

Working in the Gandhian "Satyagraha" framework, I
find that I must give you every assistance as you
prepare for our conceivable eventual court case.
Do please feel free to come round to my place for
coffee, as convenient.

In serving initial, commencement-of-action, lawsuit
papers in 2014, you without prior notice gave a
ten- or twenty-centimetre stack of hardcopy to my
landlord.  You did so without enclosing your hardcopy
in the legally required privacy-protecting envelope.
Your several hundred pages of hardcopy were secured
only with a sky-blue heavy-duty elastic band, of the
kind grocers use for bundling broccoli.  My landlord
(I believe innocently) made an incorrect situation
worse by keeping all these materials overnight
before passing them on to me.  You indeed visited my
landlord's house in 2014 with your civil-suit papers
at the one hour in the day at which I was bound -
my habits that spring were as regular as trains on
the the old Deutsche Bundesbahn - to be out for lunch.

So please do come round for coffee, but please do
proceed in a correct Satyagraha spirit, taking the
precaution of phoning beforehand to make sure that
I am in. You will at all costs wish to resist the
(perhaps natural, perhaps in some way understandable,
but in no way acceptable) temptation to involve my
landlord in my own private legal proceedings.

Everyone will likewise wish to resist another (perhaps
natural, but in no way acceptable) temptation that
might, as a hypothetical contingency, some day, for
all I know, arise for you or for other legal workers -
the temptation, namely, to visit when I am indeed in,
and yet to make the visit without prior notice.
I have to keep working on maths and other aspects of
science. Unscheduled interruptions will damage this
difficult work, for which concentration and calm
are requisites.

7. Concluding Remarks B: 
Advisability of Exploring Open ADR

It may be that Karen's unhappiness can be duly
addressed - the good of her soul, that is, be duly
served - in a manner satisfactory to her, without a
court case, in the framework of "Alternative Dispute
Resolution" (ADR).

I would be happy to proceed to formal ADR (working, in
other words, with a mediator, as opposed to a court)
on the following basis:

(1) Since I am not convicted of civil tort or criminal
offence, it would not be right for me to buy Karen's
peace by making a financial payment to her, even if
I could afford it.

(2) Since justice is not appropriately commodified, 
I should not be having to pay for the services of a 
mediator, even if I could afford it. 

(3) Any mediation has to become open (in
contradistinction to, for example, the closed,
opaque Ontario Municipal Board mediation process),
in the following sense:

* the public is allowed to attend any meetings

* the mediating parties keep minutes of their discussions, 
  jointly attesting over their joint signatures 
  that their minutes constitute a full and 
  truthful record

* the minutes are published

ADR which is in this sense "open" avoids some of
the procedural intricacies of court, while at the
same time avoiding the objection rightly brought
by Dame Hazel Genn in her 2008 Hamlyn Lectures. Her
wise objection is that mediation undercuts the rule
of law, by substituting opacity for the transparent
public processes inherent in an open courtroom. When
you come round for coffee, I would in fact be quite
keen to have your impressions of Dame Hazel. (Sorry,
I do not have a copy I am able to loan to you. But you
can proceed as I think I did, borrowing Dame Hazel
from the Bora Laskin Law Library on the UofT main
campus. It may also be that you have some relevant
book-borrowing privileges elsewhere, for instance at
York University or at Osgoode Hall.)

8. Concluding Remarks C: 
Ethical and Theological Context of This Case

I will take it that you and I have each of the following
propositions as common ground, unless you communicate to me
in writing your reasoned case for dissent in respect of any
of them:

(1) I have an emerging religious vocation, as a lay
(as opposed to a Canon 603) hermit within the Roman
rite of the Catholic Church.

(2) It is accurate to describe this vocation as one
in which I light a candle, illuminating the general
landscape in a dark time, and inaccurate to describe
this vocation as one in which I merely direct a
searchlight at some personal target - as ground
forces, for example, might direct a searchlight at
an aeroplane, to direct their flak batteries, in a
city suffering the misfortune of Luftwaffe bombing.

(3) It is consistent with my description-of-vocation
for me to proceed on the basis of Gandhi's
"Satyagraha", or "truth force", concept. In this
framework, one does not proceed to court action or
other forms of public action through the desire to
humiliate perceived enemies, but solely from the
desire to give witness to truths, and indeed in a
deeper sense to Truth itself.  The summary of this
framework at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
is for our purposes sufficient:

  The essence of Satyagraha is that
  it seeks to eliminate antagonisms
  without harming the antagonists
  themselves /.../ A Satyagrahi
  therefore does not seek to end or
  destroy the relationship with the
  antagonist, but instead seeks to
  transform or "purify" it to a
  higher level.

(4) In my specific case, the truths to which I witness
are the twin importance of the natural environment
(in this concrete case, of the forest environment)
in the communal life of a town and of science (in
this concrete case, of astrophysical science) in the
cultural life of a nation. Witness to this pair of
truths logically entails a concomitant witness to the
importance of a town's conserving its woodland and of
a nation's conserving its science-research capability.

(5) It is appropriate and correct for you, for Karen,
and for all others to call my attention to any past,
present, or future deficiencies in my commitment to
the Satyagraha outlined under heading "(3)" - as,
for instance, would be the case if I were to stray, in
the manner of a politician on the electoral hustings,
into self-promotion.  Such an allegation-of-deficiency
is appropriately argued, with evidence and logic, in
the public forum, in writing, at appropriate length. 
Such a written allegation-of-deficiency 
thereupon makes upon me a legitimate claim
either for written public rebuttal or (as the case may be)
for a public, written, act-of-contrition and 
a public, written, declaration of purpose-of-amendment. 

APPENDIX:  Cilevitz 2014-08-02 Essay, with Some Flagged Annotations


        Response to online comments by Toomas
        Karmo regarding Karen Cilevitz –
        August 2, 2014 /.../ 
        I find it astonishing that someone
        of the supposed intellect of Toomas
        Karmo continues to confuse me and my
        actions with that of the approved
        decisions and actions of the DDOD
        Board and our group, astonishing
        and tedious if not obnoxious. His
        continued verbal slings at me via
        the comment section of the Liberal
        online will not go unanswered. I am
        growing extremely tired of this one
        individual's constant attempts at
        making public statements about me which
        are severely tainted by his very skewed
        negative opinion of who I am and what
        I have accomplished as the Chair of
        the DDO Defenders, and not remotely
        based in fact and truth. And yes,
        saving and protecting 111 acres of
        at-risk Dunlap land is most definitely
        an accomplishment, no matter what this
        individual may think. I have already
        had to take legal action against him to
        reclaim my name, website and protect
        my name, my identity, my character
        and my reputation. I will not sit
        idly by as ONE individual attempts
        to malign my character and impugn
        my name and reputation, and that of
        the organization I proudly lead. As a
        result of all that has occurred, now
        penned religiously by this individual
        in a website masquerading as a
        "blog", there can be no denying
        Toomas Karmo has a peculiar focus on
        myself, a focus I ultimately have
        had to deal with through our legal
        system. I try my best to ignore the
        rantings of this individual but
        when erroneous misinformation is
        put forth into the public realm to
        deliberately attempt to discredit me,
        I will respond.
          It is true, as Karen points out,
          that some of the responsibility for
          fundraising rests with her
          Board of Directors. (Funds were
          in the autumn of 2011 and spring
          of 2012 raised under a claim to be
          working for conservation of all 77 
          Observatory hectares, when the 
          decision had already been taken
          to support Metrus's claim for a
          reduced conservation. This allegation
          of mendacious fundraising I support
          with screenshots at 
          The position regarding responsibility
          is the following: Karen and her Directors  
          acted jointly; if (I stress, **IF**) 
          it was indeed the
          Directors who were taking the 
          initiative in pressing for 
          mendacious advertising, then it was
          in Karen's executive power to stop them,
          or at any rate to resign her executive
          position in protest. But what   
          evidence is there that the initiative
          came from the Directors, deliberating 
          as a collective? Several of them
          were only sketchily aware of 
          the case, being not even resident
          in Richmond Hill. It was Karen, 
          working closely with just two or so of
          her Directors, who decided key points. 
        Backgrounder: In 2010, the DDO
        Defenders, led by me, decided to take
        a different track to that of the
        Richmond Hill Naturalists, a track
        I might add discussed with and fully
        agreed to by the Naturalists with whom
        we worked closely at the time, a track
        fully supported by the DDO Defenders
        and in fact broadly acclaimed, which
        brought the DDO Defenders, and myself
        as primary spokesperson, to affect
        a successful change in our demeanour
        and attitude in dealing with the Town
        on all matters Dunlap. I gave this
        "change in attitude" the moniker
        "Resolution not confrontation",
        and it resulted in a paradigm shift in
        the manner in which we were perceived
        and dealt with by the Town, both with
        Council and Staff. I am incredibly
        proud of this brave fork in the road
        we embarked upon for without it, as I
        have been told by many, it is entirely
        possible that the landmark DDO result
        may never have come to pass. That
        is our mark of honour, and the DDO
        Defenders are extremely, and rightfully
        so, proud of that accomplishment.
          This glosses over the fact that
          the Naturalists, whose key 
          decision-makers unburdened themselves  
          to me in their dismay, anger,
          and sorrow, felt just as       
          betrayed as I myself did.
        What I find so offensive is that Toomas
        Karmo has never even taken the time to
        have a genuine discussion with me and
        ask me questions I may have been able
        to answer which may have avoided all
        of this. 
          This is contrary to Karen's 
          severing of personal relations, 
          with inter alia a command that I 
          send her no further e-mail, 
          in her e-mail to me from
          (reproduced at 
        All he has done is write down
        every word I say, no matter if it was
        personal or not (now prohibited as a
        result of my lawsuit(s) brought against
        him which I will not publish and only
        share with someone if they ask),
        and think that that bizarre action
        is acceptable, as well as his equally
        bizarre action of publishing my spoken
        (and written) word. Toomas Karmo has
        even made the statement that he is the
        keeper of the public record of the
        ongoing DDO advocacy file and must
        make sure it is "correct". This
        in and of itself speaks to the heart
        of this matter as it appears that
        Mr. Karmo believes that only his
        word, opinion, take on the DDO matter,
        is the "correct" version. Nothing
        could be further from the truth.
        But, here we are, and I have been
        placed in the tedious position of
        having to monitor this individual's
        words and actions and respond
        if necessary. After all, if this
        individual feels it's acceptable to
        make the unfounded tainted comments
        he does about me in the public realm,
        then I shall respond as I believe I
        should. Toomas Karmo touts our Charter
        Right of "Freedom of Speech"
        to enable his slanted, compromised
        rantings regarding myself, so I have
        that exact same right to lean on this
        democratic platform to set the record
        Toomas Karmo's opinion of Karen
        Cilevitz is just that – his opinion,
        and it is thankfully in the extreme
        minority. It is not based on any
        honourable foundation, but on that of
        an individual bent on "punishing"
        me (his bizarre description likening
        me to being his errant "sister",
        is testament to this peculiar focus
        on myself) for what he perceives as
        "my" actions. These actions in
        fact were actions precipitated by
        the unanimous agreement of an entire
        Board of Directors, and actions which
        resulted in a landmark settlement and
        protection of nearly 60 percent of bitterly
        and protractedly disputed land.
        Yes, we (not "I", but "we")
        strived to fulfill our mandate to save
        and protect the "entire" site, and
        I believe the vast majority of people
        know exactly that. 
          Protecting the eastern half of the
          72-hectare Trapezoid, and signing
          an OMB Mediation agreement to 
          put a lane, 14 streets, a stormwater
          sump, and 531 homes onto the
          eastern half, does not 
          constitute fulfilling a 
          mandate for protection-of-entire-site, 
          and cannot even be called "striving"
          to fulfill such a mandate. 
          Such "striving" as is done in this
          Town is done, rather, by the
          Richmond Hill Naturalists, who have argued
          at the Conservation Review Board, 
          in Divisional Court, and (twice) at 
          the Ontario Municipal Board 
          for full conservation. 
        In fact, because
        Toomas Karmo was not involved in nor
        a direct witness to the OMB mediation,
        and because all mediation discussions
        remain protected by OMB mandated
        "in-camera confidentiality" and
        cannot by law be revealed, he cannot
        possibly know the manner in which
        we fought to protect that ideal;
        the emotional turmoil we underwent
        through this process knowing what we
        were doing would have profound and
        lasting ramifications, both positive
        and negative; the reasoning we
        employed and/or accepted to reach any
        intelligent, knowledgeable conclusions;
        or the experts we consulted to
        ensure every blade of grass we could
        possibly save was saved, and that
        which would have been destroyed or
        turned over to dust, was in fact saved
        and protected. In fact, Toomas Karmo
        cannot possibly know anything about the
        in-camera 7 month-long mediation, and
        yet he continues to make assumptions
        and malign and tag me as a "Metrus
        supporter" or "pro-Metrus" which
        is so insulting and offensive and
        beyond any semblance of fact, as to be
        an outright, contrived, vicious lie.

          "Pro-Metrus" is covered by Fair
          Comment defence in defamation law. 
          Metrus's most controversial and
          weighty development case is
          the Observatory. Karen supports
          Metrus's plan to build 531 homes
          at the Observatory. She is not
          "anti-Metrus" in providing Metrus
          with this support, nor is she
          in providing this support
          neutral regarding Metrus. 
          The sole remaining
          alternative, "pro-Metrus", is 
          therefore accurate. - It must be
          conceded that Karen has spoken out
          against Metrus in a matter of
          subsidiary importance, although
          here her record is to a troubling degree 
          ambiguous. On 2014-09-03, 
          at a meeting of Heritage Richmond Hill, she
          spoke in mild terms against Metrus/Corsica's
          proposed "temporary sales centre" in the
          DDO Administration Building. Marianne Yake
          from the Richmond Hill Naturalists spoke
          out forcefully at that same meeting, and
          I in speaking at that same
          meeting went to far as to promise
          to Metrus/Corsica that I would mount a legal
          picket of any such sales centre. 
          In the wake of these forthright,
          correctly strenuous, representations, Karen 
          posted to Facebook, on or around 2014-09-04,
          quite a vigorous denunciation of the
          "temporary sales centre". Had the tide turned? 
          Perhaps not, for three reasons.  
          (1) Oddly, when at or within
          two minutes of UTC=20141217T205511Z, I checked
          Karen's Facebook entries for 2014 September,
          her forthright anti-sales-centre
          posting from on or around 2014-09-03 
          had disappeared. 
          (2) On 2014-12-08, at Committee
          of the Whole, Karen (now a Councillor) 
          had the opportunity to speak against the
          "temporary sales centre", in the wake of my
          (correctly forceful) podium remarks, and she
          did not take it. (3) On 2014-12-15, at Council, 
          Karen again had the opportunity to speak against
          the "temporary sales centre", in the wake
          of fresh (again appropriately forceful) podium
          remarks from me, and again she did not. 
          - It may be hoped that this present annotation
          from my desk, composed 2014-12-16 and fine-tuned
          2014-12-17, will induce Karen to denounce the
          sales centre forcefully, repairing her
          omissions of 2014-12-08 and 2014-12-15,
          and returning her to her 
          (vanished?) Facebook stance
          from on or around 2014-09-04. A fresh Facebook
          entry will be helpful, as resolving the
          confusion surrounding the disappearance
          of her forthright anti-sales-centre
          Facebook material from on or around 2014-09-04.
          With this corrective action taken, 
          Karen's position will 
          be one of supporting Metrus on a key point
          (accepting, namely, the 14 streets and 531 homes) 
          while opposing Metrus on a detail (denying the
          sales centre - drearily predictable 
          logical corollary though that
          unethical sales centre may be to the 
          earlier theorem, i.e., to the 
          unethical 531-home subdivision proposal). 
          With the tide finally, in that sense, turned, 
          and duly documented (notably on Facebook), 
          it will be appropriate to say that Karen was
          from 2012 to some point in 2014 an unequivocal
          supporter of Metrus (before the sales centre
          got mooted), and that a qualifying,
          a tempering, of her supportive position became evident
          as the sales-centre debate matured. The right phrasing
          will then be something like this: "Until 2014-09-03, 
          Karen was straightforwardly a supporter of Metrus. 
          She gave some sign on 2014-09-03 of qualifying or
          tempering her support, and in the months following
          2014-09-03 she took sufficient public action to make
          it fair to call her position one of tempered and
          qualified support, rather than of straightforward 
        It was through dedicated effort,
        which we, the DDO Defenders decided
        to undertake, again by unanimous DDOD
        Board decision and not through any
        singular undertaking, to participate in
        mediation and thankfully achieve the
        remarkable outcome saving nearly 60 percent
        of this magnificent historic land. And
        we remain exceedingly proud of our
        contribution to this end, an end which
        could have had a far graver result had
        it not been for our direct commitment
        and involvement. And I believe, as
        do many others, anyone who questions
        that in the manner Toomas Karmo has,
        is simply not in touch with reality.
        It was the DDOD Board which unanimously
        adopted the Minutes of Settlement, the
        DDOD Board which underwrote and voted
        on every decision taken by the DDOD
        Mediation Team with regard to mediation
        discussion and decisions. I may be
        Chair of this remarkable organization
        and I may have lead the DDOD mediation
        team, but I do not work in a vacuum
        and I am not a despot. I in fact am,
        as anyone who knows me will attest,
        a die-hard democrat in whatever I do
        or undertake to accomplish. The DDOD
        Board functions by majority vote. I am
        but one vote on a Board of 12 (which
        includes Donalda Dunlap-Robarts, Jessie
        Donalda Dunlap's granddaughter),
        and I was one of 4 members of the
        mediation team which followed the same
        rule of open discussion and majority
        vote on any and all decisions. I, as
        Karmo states in his comment above,
        did not "accept(ing) the OMB
        settlement", we helped formulate
        it and we voted unanimously to ratify
        it, as did all Parties to mediation,
        and 2 of the 3 OMB Parties who did not
        participate in mediation. The Richmond
        Hill Naturalists were the only OMB
        Party which objected. I believe the
        former speaks for itself and the lauded
        settlement is our mark of honour. That
        Toomas Karmo does not share that
        widely acknowledged sentiment, is his
        problem to bear, but unfortunately,
        he has made it mine. And, lastly, it
        is the DDO Defenders as an organization
        which raised funds to support our legal
        defense fund, not Karen Cilevitz the
        individual, as is quite evident on the
        DDOD website.
        As further discussion, which I believe
        germane to reveal in this forum –
        On February 1st, 2012, I underwent
        a risky heart procedure to correct
        a congenital irregular heart rhythm,
        which was thankfully very successful.  
          Day surgery, I think, and I think
          not normally considered notably more
          "risky" than many other day-surgery
          procedures. Could Karen comment, please?
          If she continues to assert "risky", 
          could she explain the sense of "risk"? 
          (Was there risk of cardiac arrest, 
          of haemorrhage into pericardium,...? 
          I have to keep an open mind on this, 
          tracking the facts in the spirit
          of Gandhi indeed, but also with 
          the gumshoe tenacity of television 
          detective Perry Mason.  
          Mason is apparently celebrated for
          saying "Just the facts, ma'am, just
          the facts."
        I do not publicly speak of this as it
        is not something I believe requires
        public attention as it is my own
        extremely personal business. The day
        before I was admitted to TGH for this
        procedure, I received a mailed letter
        from Toomas Karmo, despite my having
        told him quite some time before that he
        was not to contact me anymore. However,
        despite this being quite clearly told
        to him, and prior to my undergoing
        heart surgery, Toomas Karmo still
        felt it appropriate to write me a
        2 page letter scolding me for his
        perception of who I am and what I do,
        and he justified this with the caveat
        that he needed to let me know these
        things "in the event of my death"
        as a result of my impending cardiac
        surgery. Shocking and incomprehensible,
        but, clearly indicative of the broader
        problem at hand.
        My son heard a muffled sound and
        found me crumpled on the floor
        having difficulty breathing with
        this revolting letter clenched in
        my hand. 
          I reproduce my letter, with discussion, 
          at http://www.karen-vs-toomas-blog.ca,   
          in my blog posting timestamped
          Some readers will find it helpful
          to have the letter reproduced here also, 
          so that they can judge the issues. 
          Here I think I can safely reproduce it
          without commentary: 
                Dear Karen (with subsequent
                e-mail transcript to desks of
                ((CONCEALED)) ),
                The news of your impending heart
                surgery reached me this morning,
                about three hours ago.
                Please consider what I can now do,
                acting as your friend. You may
                wish at this anxious time to have
                a look at the two books which I
                believe are already on loan to
                you from my stacks, namely Gwynne
                Dyer's _Climate Wars_ (first
                edition) and the hope-inspiring
                _Long Descent: A User's Guide to
                the End of the Industrial Age_
                by John Michael Greer.
                Alternatively, however, it may
                be that I should be putting
                into your hands a book more
                suited for contemplation (in the
                sense in which contemplation is
                a theological counterpoint or
                antithesis to action), namely
                L.H. Duquin's _They Called Her
                the Baroness_. Duquin's book is
                the biography of a remarkable,
                albeit occasionally foolish,
                woman, Catherine (Katya) de Hueck
                Doherty, foundress of the Madonna
                House monastic movement. Duquin
                has the merit and virtue of
                exposing her heroine fully, in
                all the oddness and paradoxicality
                of a career that took Katya from
                Tsarist Russia into the backwoods
                of eastern Ontario via, among
                other things, a collaboration with
                Dorothy Day.
                Unless you advise otherwise,
                I will assume you do not have
                time to attend to any of this
                before your operation, but that
                you will try to do what you can
                afterward. My cell phone is,
                as always, 647-267-9566.
                Note also that it would be
                useful for us to talk about
                ((EXPLICATION="Biblical Hebrew
                studies")) over tea, either
                before or after your operation. I
                should at that point show you
                my minor Hebrew resources in
                ((EXPLICATION="my place of
                residence")). As of bed time
                last night, my timelog registered
                117 hours 32 minutes. Progress,
                although steady, is slow.
                I hope to be praying for your
                welfare with the Toronto branch
                of ((CONCEALED)) 2012-01-30, in
                a meeting that I happened to have
                arranged less than 24 hours before
                word of your impending operation
                reached ((EXPLICATION="my place
                of residence")).
                Please note in the event
                of your death at surgery -
                but this is only a _remote_
                contingency, by the information
                percolating to ((EXPLICATION="my
                place of residence")) - that
                I shall forever consider you a
                friend, indeed a friend in the
                honourable-albeit-awkward category
                of Erring Sister, and that I will
                be permanently grateful for the
                help you were able to give in
                urging me to find specialists in
                Asperger's Syndrome.
          Karen's characterization of the letter as
          "revolting" is puzzling. How can my missive 
          be read as anything other than what it is - 
          namely, as an attempt to help a person for
          whom one is feeling worried? It is additionally
          puzzling that Karen has changed her opinion on the
          "revolting" (her word) character of the letter. 
          Some few days, 
          or perhaps some few weeks, 
          after I sent it to her, with her surgery safely
          behind her, she thanked me for it as we were 
          settling into 
          public-observer seats at Town Council. 
          Why the change in view? Could Karen or Jason
          now elucidate, please? 
        My children and family were
        already highly on edge, as expected,
        with me going in for this cardiac
        surgery the next day, and me trying
        to keep them as calm and focused as
        possible. So without me going into the
        description of what followed next, I am
        sure anyone reading this can appreciate
        the unnecessary consequences which
        followed,consequences I did not need
        to have to deal with the day before
        cardiac surgery,and consequences my
        children and family most definitely
        should have been spared, consequences
        directly wrought by an individual
        who for some bizarre reason feels
        he has the right to interfere in my
        life to a degree I have never before
        experienced. While I understand and
        acknowledge that being a "public"
        person does bring with it a degree of
        public attention which can be negative,
        the "attention" I have received
        from this individual and what he has
        perpetrated related to that unwanted
        "attention", specifically and
        for no other reason than to grossly
        interfere with my life, deliberately
        and with biased intent, to tarnish my
        name and reputation, goes beyond the
        pale of even tacit acceptance in the
        normal world.
        I have no problem with, and in fact
        welcome, constructive discourse on
        any topic. But what this individual
        has done and continues to do, has
        absolutely nothing remotely to do
        with that concept. Toomas Karmo has an
        opinion of me, and an opinion of what
        I have achieved as Chair of the DDO
        Defenders. It is his opinion. It is not
        remotely close to any fact or truth. It
        is twisted, specious logic to feed his
        singular obsession.I will not stand
        idly by and be inaccurately branded a
        fiend by someone who is doing so to a)
        Feed his own obsession, or b) Attempt
        to ruin my reputation by publicly
        making erroneous statements which
        have no bearing in truth and fact, but
        are in fact skewed to support his own
        compromised opinion of myself. And I
        have great faith that anyone reading
        anything he writes or anything he
        publicly prints regarding myself, will
        be read with an immediate understanding
        and acknowledgement of the reasons this
        individual continues to do what he does
        with regard to his attempts to trash
        Karen Cilevitz.
        It should also be noted that a few
        weeks ago, this individual wrote a
        bizarre email to a member of the DDOD
        Executive requesting he "influence"
        me to respond to something on Facebook,
        and invited him to join a "walk" to
        "save" the DDO lands. This person
        has been a DDOD Board member since
        the inception of the Board in 2011;
        a member of the Executive since it
        was formed shortly thereafter; and a
        member of the DDOD Mediation Team. For
        Toomas Karmo to think that his contact
        with our esteemed Board member was even
        remotely appropriate, I believe quite
        clearly further illustrates the matter
        at hand.
        Toomas Karmo repeatedly refers to
        himself as "a dissident member
        within DDOD". This is patently
        incorrect. Toomas Karmo is no longer
        considered a "member" of the DDO
        Defenders. This organization divested
        itself of his "membership" and
        supposed proprietorship over our
        name and entity. His own pinpointed
        negative diatribes against us and our
        accomplishments have taken care of that
        quite thoroughly. He was informed some
        ago that he is no longer accepted as a
        member of DDOD. 
          "Informed some [time] ago" is false. 
          I had received no information 
          of my exclusion from the Defenders 
          when Karen wrote her 2014-08-02
          essay, and indeed as of the writing of
          this annotation (in the afternoons
          of 2014-12-16 and 2014-12-17), 
          I still have received
          no such information. 
        Therefore, for him to
        continually refer to himself as such,
        is as misinforming as everything else
        he believes he has a right to spew with
        regard to myself.
        And lastly, to quote the rest of the
        sentence written by this individual,
        "a dissident member within DDOD,
        opposing Karen since her 2011
        pro-Metrus decisions" – I am
        equally astonished that Toomas Karmo
        would write this in the public realm
        considering I have already brought
        legal action against him for his
        previous misguided references to
        Karen Cilevitz being "pro-Metrus",
        statements he has had to retract and
        for which he has had to apologize. And
        yet, here we have it again.
          I do not retract "pro-Metrus".
          What I do repudiate is different 
          language, "working for Metrus",
          if this intrinsically inoffensive
          language is given the tendentious
          and forced parsing "working for 
          Metrus for financial reward". 
          (The more natural parsing is simply
          "working for Metrus - as one might be
          working for Campaign Cilevitz, 
          or working for the environment, 
          or working for the conservation of 
          good table manners".)  
          My repudiation of the tendentious
          and forced parsing is given on the
          homepage of
          For convenience, I reproduce it here: 
            I, Toomas Karmo, have no reason
            to believe Ms. Cilevitz to be
            either (a) a payroll employee of
            Metrus of (b) a payroll employee
            of any Metrus subsidiary
            (including Corsica). Nor do
            I have any reason to believe
            that Ms. Cilevitz has received
            any other monetary benefit
            from Metrus or Corsica. I
            regret any pain I may have
            caused Ms. Cilevitz through my
            injudicious use of the phrase
            "working for Metrus" in my
            Web publishing at the site,
            which I owned from September
            2013 until the domain-name
            transfer to Ms. Cilevitz
            in 2014. I freely, openly,
            and without reservation admit
            that my incautiously chosen
            Web words "working for Metrus"
            could have been interpreted by
            a malicious reader as "working
            for pay for Metrus". I herewith
            affirm that I did not think of
            this particular interpretation
            when injudiciously writing
            these words.
        I rest my case. Time for me to get
        back to that which really matters –
        my life and my campaign!
        Thank you for taking the time to read
        this. Please contact me personally if
        you wish any further information.
        Karen Cilevitz.

All of which is composed at my place of residence
(42 Gentry Crescent, Richmond Hill, ON L4C 2G9),
under prayerful invocation of Saints Joseph
the Worker and Thomas More - orate pro nobis, 
pro inimicis amicisque nostris - 
and respectfully submitted to you, Jason, by me, 

Toomas (Tom) Karmo 

PS: It will help you and Karen, in your mutual,
understandable (albeit incorrect) upset and annoyance,
to ponder with me the symbolism of a candle. When I
think of candles, I think not so much of church or
synagogue as of the Amnesty International logo, and of
such authorities as Solzhenitsyn. In the logo we see
a candle in barbed wire. What were Solzhenitsyn and
similar authorities, if not candles in the darkness
which after Lenin's 1917 putsch overtook the Russian
Empire? One of course also thinks in this context
of Sir Elton John, singing about the "candle in the
wind" at the 1997-09-06 funeral of Lady Di at the
Abbey - correctly bringing out something positive in
what one might in a superficial and misconceived
Puritanism think to have been the very paradigm of a
frivolous, privileged, empty "Sloane Ranger" life.
(Sloane Rangers" was a term derisively applied by
persons from the British political left to children
of privilege, such as Lady Di, clubbing and dancing
in the West End of the 1980s or 1990s, in or around
Sloane Square - not, admittedly, that my own 
modest visits to London allow me at the moment
to place Sloane Square on the map.)

Toomas (Tom) Karmo
42 Gentry Crescent
Richmond Hill ON L4C 2G9



This page, hand-coded with a Linux text editor by Tom Karmo, is designed to display fully in CSS-aware browsers, including smartphone browsers. CSS-blind browsers (most of these are obsolescent, from 2000 or before) will drop some or all decorative elements but will not suppress textual content. The portions of this site typeset in red, maximally bold, oblique ("slanted") fonts are published pursuant to the out-of-court legal settlement of 2014-05-05 between Karen Cilevitz and Toomas Karmo. The relevant legal documents (Statement of Claim, peace-bond summons, and so on, and also the settlement dismissing the court actions) may be inspected at http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca.

[Valid XHTML 1.0!] [Valid CSS!]