goinglikeelsie

JY? Ask potential clients about their genitals? MD - your name was Jessica JY? I have a friend named Taylor, is trans, would wax based on name? MD - not to do with a name, is Taylor trans from my point of veiw (surgery) or yours (no surgery) JY? - mine MD - no

JY wants to show MD a pic, does so MD - says a pic of JY, profile pic as male, wearing glasses and a tie JY wants to show MD a pic of Taylor. Taylor, JY's trans friend, shows MD on phone MD - that was Jessica (pic used to contact MD) Laughter from the gallery JC - interesting

Member says JY must show pic to her and JC MD - it's been a year so not 100% but thinks so JY shows MD a pic of Mia

Taking a moment here because this might be getting confusing. JY is claiming that friend Mia S, the pregnant lady was msging MD on JY's behalf and that Taylor the trans woman is also a friend. MD's evidence suggests they are all the same person - JY using fake profiles/pic

JY shows pic of Mia MD - no was a blond JY - was pregnant MD - so am I More discussion about Mia and Taylor and Jessica. JY says Mia contacted MD to arrange wax for JY. MD says that the pic that JY shows of Mia was not the service requester, was Taylor pic with name Jessica

JC reiterates that MD identified Taylor pic as service requester and who,provided JY's number to MD More discussion about Mia pic vs Taylor pic, which was used to request service for JY.

JC - point is MD saw pic of Taylor (as service requester using name Jessica), shows to Member, show to MD (pic is attractive with long curly hair) MD - yes JY says I can "look like that in a heartbeat"

MD describes the sequence of event, JY said interested on FB, MD closed the promo, Mia asks, you ask (meaning JY as Taylor/Jessica) said yes. JY? I said interested (male profile) and you closed ad? MD - yes promo was over JY? Mia reached out? Some confusion still re Mia

At this time, Miriam Yaniv who had been waiting in the hallway (outside the hearing until time to give her testimony) enters the hearing room, puts an open iPad on table in front of Member and leaves. Member says can't have iPad, passes it to JY, reminded to close it, does so.

MD - doesn't remember Mia, says JY has said she denied service before she even texted JY, how is that possible JY - interested, ad marked sold MD - promo wax over, no convo JY argues with MD about whether they had a FB convo or if JY clicked the interested button, then ad sold.

MD - then you reached out as someone else, got my address, think that's fair? More argument about whether they had a convo (clicked sold) JY tries to ask MD question about a convo/plan JY had with Mia. Member, can't ask GD about JY convos with Mia that GD has no knowledge of.

JY? Clicking sold shuts down FB convo? GD - you saw my profile, my kids, saw everything JY? You said I kept texting you, busy with kids, why two msgs so overwhelming. GD - reads off 4 msgs, said stop msg, busy, trans no problem but on profile, not trans, pregnant

When GD saw JY's real pic (selfie - looking pretty bomb) thought it was a joke, asked her husband, agreed not safe. JY? Why a problem? GD - talked to her husband because was pics were not the same person, JY went to her work, tried to get her fired, reported her FB as fake

JY says we are not getting anywhere, closes cross of MD. JC follow ups ? Show Ext#26 - SS of texts, MD's number at top, texting JY? MD - got JY's # from Jessica on FB ? the pic of blond lady (Taylor)? MD - yes ? another JY pic, male, glasses and tie?

JY says this pic is irrelevant, doesn't want to be allowed in, doesn't want it on the file. Member will allow questions based on pic. ? Show pics same as txt pic? MD - no, searched for Jonathan Yaniv on Twitter, found a pic (male) and took with her when she went to the police

? This pic I showed (JY as male), similar to the one you saw on Twitter? GD - yes ? Language you are most comfortable speaking? GD - Brazilian Portuguese GD's testimony is done. Hearing goes for lunch break. Miriam brings JY some McDonald's

Man from gallery, leaving the room, says enjoy your burger. Breaking for the night. After the hearing's lunch break, JY's testimony resumes. JY has problems with low blood sugar but will be able to go on.

Back from the hearing lunch break. JY mentions problems with blood sugar but can go on. Miriam Yaniv not in room as will be called to testify Before JY is sworn in again there is discussion of new evidence that JY wants to have entered. It is described by JY as a FB convo w GD

JY says this is the FB convo had with MD on original interested/ad closed service request. Member has a couple of options, disallow or allow but also recall MD to allow reply. I hesitate to use MD's initials when recounting some of this convo as it has not been proven it was her

Note: Sorry, may have said GD for MD in the last few tweets! MD is the respondent in this case, there is no GD, where I have said GD, it is meant to be MD. Lots of initials to keep track of!

Back to supposed FB convo new evidence: JY - I'm a girl Supposedly MD - LOL JY - what's so funny? @JurisCameron says no context, doesn't appear to be MD, wasn't disclosed, MD not here to reply, Member should not allow or rely on without MD being able to respond

JY wants Member to admit. JC leaves hearing to call MD, could not reach her. JC - no date on convo JY - says shows I did continue convo with MD - supposedly JY said would pay full price - supposedly MD said, hi, don't do on men LOL - supposedly JY replied I'm a girl

JC says it is clearly from a phone not FB. Member suggests that JC look at Ext #25, page 2 https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie/status/1153399766081921024?s=21 …

JC asks JY, are you on the internet right now? JY - yes searching Member tells JY not allowed JC says continuity problem with new convo, page 1 time stamp 5:45 PM page 2 time stamp 11:59 PM JY says it is because 1 page taken from desktop, other from mobile at different times

JC - not the same profile pic of my client, irreconcilable continuity issues JY - profile pic changes when ad removed Member decides that this new evidence of a supposed FB convo between JY and MD will not be allowed in.

JY now wants to admit a text exchange (2 pgs) that JY says was had with Mia S.(JY's pregnant friend). JY says it wasn't disclosed until now, "my mistake" JC - text exchange is not about my client, is about different respondent, reads part about (JY) having to go to the ER.

JY - yes, was txt exchange about another refusal of service (but not about a respondent as JY did not file complaint about this) - says was refused by a 10 year old, this was a refusal of service by a 10 year old - says wasn't going to complain about a 10 year old

JC reviews: - JY purports it to be a txt exchange with Mia S. - JY has not called Mia S. as witness - talking about different refusal of service (not MD) - colluding to create HR complaint against another individual (not MD)

JC says he will bring an application for JY's other SM/ online convos to be brought into evidence. Member says if does not purport to involve MD, why not allow? JC - does purport to involve her, same as the last FB convo JY tried to get in, no opportunity for MD to say if her

JY says fair but MD hadn't told anyone she would have to leave early today JC - may be a created (falsified) chat created using SS from a present day Mia, is not reliable, must have occurred at same time period as convos with MD JY wants to get Mia on the phone Member says no