HRTO File 2025-64274-I – Update on Mediation and Evidence Preservation (December 12, 2025)

NOTE:

INGRAMSPARKS GAVE ME A FAKE "temporary password" (my archive.org password)
THAT DIDN'T WORK, AND THEN TELEGRAPHED LIKE IT WAS 1886 THAT THEY HAD ACCESS TO MY ACCOUNT THEY LOCKED ME OUT AFTER THAT, LOCKED ALL MY ACCOUNTS.
SO IF YOU SEE ANYTHING WEIRD POSTED TO MY ACCOUNT, THEY DID THAT.

Subject: File 2025-64274-I – Request to Dispense with Mediation (Rule 19 / Practice Direction)
From
Stored with zero-access encryption
[email protected]<[email protected]>
Star message
MAJOR DECISIONS
1:54 AMFriday, December 12th, 2025 at 1:54 AM
To
[email protected]<[email protected]>
[email protected]
[email protected]
Hide details
Friday, December 12th, 2025 at 1:54 AM

Subject: File 2025-64274-I – Request to Dispense with Mediation (Rule 19 / Practice Direction)To: [email protected]
CC: Amazon counsel, Barnes & Noble counselRegistrar,Please accept this letter as a formal request under Rule 19 and the Practice Direction on Mediation to dispense with mediation and proceed directly to a hearing on the merits.The applicant does not consent to mediation and submits that mediation would be futile and prejudicial for the following reasons:

1. The Respondents have engaged in a pattern of bad-faith reprisal since the filing of the Application, including but not limited to:
- simultaneous multi-platform suppression of evidence videos (deletion, throttling, shadow-banning, comment removal, shadow deletion) on YouTube/Google and Rumble timed to coincide with new filings in this matter;
- refusal to provide any non-discriminatory explanation for the permanent disabling of the applicant’s publishing account;
- continued obstruction in related third-party production requests (Scotiabank).
2. Google/Alphabet Inc. (not yet a party) has actively interfered with the applicant’s ability to present evidence by deleting or hiding videos and commentary directly related to this proceeding, further demonstrating bad faith in the overall reprisal pattern.
3. Mediation requires a minimum level of good faith and willingness to engage. The Respondents’ conduct to date makes meaningful settlement discussions impossible.
4. The applicant simply does not wish to participate in mediation. Forcing mediation in these circumstances would be pointless and contrary to the Tribunal’s objective of efficient, proportionate resolution.

The applicant is prepared to proceed immediately to a hearing on the merits and requests that the Tribunal schedule same at the earliest opportunity.Regards,
Brendan S. Rose
Applicant (self-represented)
December 12, 2025