August 18-20|Seven Councillors and the Mayor Still Have Not Responded – But My Livelihood Is Intact

Freedom of Information Requests

Request	Scope	Expected Response
FOI #2026-164	What materials Council had before the vote	September 14
New FOI request	Why the City linked me to the August 23 rally	September 28

 

August 18 (Tuesday)

11:00 a.m. | Press Conference About the August 23 Peaceful Rally

There was a press conference this morning about the peaceful rally planned for August 23. I learned about it only from an employee at my company.

I am recording that fact because it bears on an issue that has come up repeatedly: I did not organize this rally.

I understand that some people in the community want to speak out about this matter, and I respect everyone’s lawful right to assemble. But I am not the organizer. I had no prior knowledge of it and learned about the arrangements afterward through a third party.

In this matter, I can be responsible only for what I myself have done. I do not endorse an event in which I was not involved, nor do I accept responsibility for it.

Response Received from the City’s FOI Office

On August 13, the City of Richmond’s venue rental/facility booking office unexpectedly contacted me to ask for details about the August 23 peaceful rally.

I am not the organizer of this event. I do not know why the City connected it to me. I therefore submitted a freedom of information request to understand how that determination was made and what it was based on.

Today I was told that a response to the request is not expected until September 28.

So this is where things now stand:

The election is on October 17.

I will not comment on the timing. I am simply placing the dates here for each reader to consider.

August 19 (Wednesday)Morning | Two Items, No Change

There has still been no response from the City.

The posts by Councillors Day and Gillanders have not been removed, and the image remains publicly visible. It has now been nearly a month since the posts were published on July 25 and July 28.

4:00 p.m. | Meeting with Counsel

The meeting went ahead as scheduled. I will not discuss its substance here.

Evening | Bill Mok’s Article

Bill Mok, a candidate for Richmond school trustee, posted on Facebook about the August 23 rally and this incident. His article was titled “Before August 23: Can We Sit Down and Talk First?” and asked whether a conversation could take place before the rally.

The article did not clearly take a side. Its overall position was fairly ambiguous, and its main message was a call for dialogue.

Here is my view.

First, there is nothing wrong with calling for dialogue. In any situation, a willingness to talk is better than silence. I do not dispute that.

But I want to make my own position clear: I have never refused dialogue.

From July 27 to today, I sent three formal letters to the Mayor and every member of Council, copying the Chief Administrative Officer. Three letters. No replies. I am not the one who has been unwilling to sit down and talk.

So the question “Can we sit down and talk first?” needs to be directed properly: it should be asked of those who received the letters and did not respond.

Second, as I have consistently said, I will not meet in private. This matter occurred publicly from beginning to end: a public motion, a public vote, and public social media posts. It should also be resolved publicly. I am ready to talk at any time in a public setting where a record is kept.

Third, the question of whether there should be talks or a rally first is not mine to answer, because I did not organize the rally.

Finally, I want to say something more important to everyone who is running for office:

The real test in this incident is not who uses the gentlest language. It is whether you spoke up at the moment when speaking up mattered.

Calling for dialogue is one kind of position. Saying what you believe happened and where you stand is another. The second is what voters need to see.

I am not singling anyone out. A candidate who is willing to write about this matter has already done more than someone who remains completely silent, and I acknowledge that. But ambiguity is not a position, and when residents vote, they need to know where a candidate stands.

August 20 (Thursday)My Health Over the Past Few Days, and My Friends’ Concerns

Over the past few days, many friends have been worried about me. I am writing this down in part to give those who care about me an account of how I am doing.

A Message Passed Along Telling Me to “Stop”

A friend passed along a message that they said came from a city councillor. The message, as relayed to me, was that I should stop what I was doing and stop “making trouble.”

I want to make two points.

First, I have not been “making trouble.” Everything I have done has stayed within lawful processes: writing letters, contacting the Ombudsperson, filing freedom of information requests, and consulting a lawyer. Not one letter has gone beyond those processes, and not one step has strayed from them. If that is considered “making trouble,” I do not know how an ordinary resident is supposed to defend their rights.

Second, because this was only an oral message and there is nothing in writing, I will not go into further detail or name anyone here. This is my consistent practice: if something has not been put in writing, I do not treat it as part of the record. A relayed message can be denied; written words cannot. That is why all of my substantive communications are in writing, and I hope others will do the same.

Friends’ Concerns About “Safety”

Friends have asked me: Will they target you? This is the government, after all. If you keep doing this on your own, could there be a safety issue? Others have told me that certain forces are acting aggressively and that I should be careful.

My answer is this: I believe that in a democratic country governed by the rule of law, such as Canada, this will not be an issue. I am not afraid of the police, because I have committed no crime. As for anything else, it has nothing to do with me.

This is not bravado. It is my basic trust in this country. If I did not have even that much trust, then everything I have done over these four weeks would be meaningless. I have been talking about process, the rule of law, and how a resident should be treated. I must be the first to believe in those principles.

To Be Honest, the Pressure Is Real

I do not want to pretend that nothing is wrong. The pressure has genuinely been heavy, and I have been anxious.

On the night of August 19, I did not fall asleep until 3:00 a.m. My mind would not stop. Eventually I simply got up, and that night I made three videos, recording whatever came to me while I could not sleep.

The feeling created by three unanswered letters is not anger. It is a sense of being left in limbo. You do not know what the other side is thinking, you do not know what will happen next, and no one is willing to say a single word to you.

But I Believe It Is Worth It

After thinking it through, I still intend to keep calling for higher voter turnout.

This matters. Voting is a civic responsibility and duty, but many people do not take it seriously because they feel that one vote cannot change anything. Going through this myself has made me more certain of something: it is precisely because so many people do not vote that some people may come to believe others can be treated however they like.

If my experience can move more people to enter a polling station on October 17, then the pressure and the ordeal will have been worth it.

That has been my only purpose from beginning to end. It has never changed.

Formal Response Received from BCFSA | File Closed

Regarding the complaint Bob Ransford made to BCFSA – a complaint that put my livelihood at risk – the outcome is as follows:

The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) completed its review of the earlier complaint and sent me a formal response.

There are three conclusions:

1. BCFSA sent me a Letter of Advisement stating that the social media content in question did not meet its standards for professional communication by licensees, and reminding me to exercise care in what I say on social media.
2. The letter expressly states that the Letter of Advisement is “not a formal disciplinary record.”
3. BCFSA stated that it was “closing this file.”

I did not say a single word about this publicly from the end of July until today – not once. The reason is simple: while a regulator is conducting a review, the person involved should not try to argue the matter publicly.

Now that the file has been closed, I can record the outcome here.

I accept BCFSA’s comments. As a licensee, I recognize that what I post on social media – including AI-generated images – must meet a higher standard, and I will conduct myself accordingly. At the same time, I am recording the result exactly as it was given: no disciplinary record, and the file is closed.

At this point, the four processes stand as follows:

BCFSA – Review complete; Letter of Advisement issued; no disciplinary record; file closed.

Human Rights Tribunal – As of August 11, no complaint related to this incident had been received.

FOI – One response extended to September 14; the other to September 28.

Ombudsperson – In progress.

And two things have not changed:

Three formal letters – no replies.

The image – still on the public pages of two city councillors.

What I Want to Say

The hardest part of these four weeks has never been the criticism. It has been the silence.

A motion naming me personally passed unanimously by a vote of seven. I received no advance notice and no opportunity to make any statement. Afterward, I wrote three letters, always asking the same question: Please identify the sentence in the article that supports this conclusion.

One sentence would be enough. As of today, no one has answered.

Throughout this period, I have kept reminding myself that I should do only what I can be responsible for. I do not organize events I did not organize. I do not speculate about anyone’s motives. I do not argue matters publicly while a process is underway. I do not publish anything I have not verified.

What remains is to keep the record carefully, one day at a time.

On October 17, please vote. Look at the platforms. Look at the records. Look at whether a person spoke when speaking was required.

Current Status | As of August 20

Item	Status
BCFSA	File closed; no disciplinary record
BCHRT	No related complaint received as of August 11
FOI #2026-164	Extended to September 14
FOI (link to August 23 rally)	Extended to September 28
Ombudsperson 26-005380	In progress
Three formal letters	No replies
Image	Still online

 

Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics

Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.