EDIT: I thought I had it all figured out but here's a guy who's way ahead of me...
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
How to make a geodesic dome
I made this last week. I'm not going to tell you how but their was a fair bit of geometry involved:
If you want to buy one I've listed it on Kijiji.
EDIT: I thought I had it all figured out but here's a guy who's way ahead of me...
EDIT: I thought I had it all figured out but here's a guy who's way ahead of me...
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Trouble in Paradise?
Yesterday was the first round in the actual court arguments of my fight with the University. I've been to court a dozen times already, but those were just formal appearances. Yesterday we argued a motion before a Master. Now we have to wait for the verdict.
This was the University's Motion for Summary Judgement, which they filed in January just days before I was about to begin discovery. A lot has happened since then. On January 11th I went to the home of Professor George Bush to try and serve him with a lawsuit for defamation, and his wife slammed the door on me and called the police. Then the University issued a no-trespassing order which I defied, resulting in them having me thrown in jail. In the meantime Professor Bush had gone to court to try (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against me on the basis of the "home invasion" of the 11th. Subsequently, I wrote up a new lawsuit accusing Professor Bush and his wife of defamation against me for claiming I tried to force my way into their home.
That lawsuit has been filed and served, and Brian Meronek of Darcy and Deacon has filed a Statement of Defence. You can read my claim against the Bushes over here; later maybe I will get around to posting the Statement of Defence. It's kind of interesting. Heather Bush denies that she "phoned" the U of W Security office to complain about me, but then goes on to say that whatever she said was justified on the basis that it was the truth. Only she doesn't actually admit that she even said anything. We'll see how that works out.
In the meantime, I was still holding on to the original lawsuit against George Bush...the one that prompted them to slam the door on me back in January. I never did get the chance to serve that one, because I was thrown in jail; and once I was out, the first order of business was to counter the accusation of home invasion. Once that was out of the way, and their Statement of Defence was on record, I then went downtown to Darcy and Deacon and served them with the original George Bush lawsuit, which deals with stuff he said about me in class in front of the other students. You can read that lawsuit over here.
There's one more case I have against the University. I've filed an Application for a Court Order instructing them to give me a grade on Assignment 5 from Professor Metz's course. I've posted the correspondence between myself and the University where Professor Metz claims that I did not complete the assignment, and I prove that I did. The University then said it doesn't matter if I did or I didn't, because they're not responsible for awarding grades to a student after he's been kicked out of school. I'm saying they are, and I'm going to court on that basis. You can read my Application here.
In the meantime, I was also appealing the F that Professor Bush gave me on this assignment. The Departmental Committee "reviewed" the grade and decided it was appropriate. So I appealed to the Senate Committee. After much prodding, I got them to admit that they ratified the F without even reading the paper (!). I was about to stick it to them when suddenly the chair of the Senate Committee, who had provided me with the damaging admission and assured me that I would be allowed to argue my case before his committee, disappeared and was replaced by someone more sympathetic to the needs of the University. I think they call that "being a team player". Professor Moulaison found that there was no need for me to argue my case, as it was "obvious" that the only thing to do would be to have me re-submit the paper for the Departmental Committee. (So they could read the paper first before ratifying the F!). When I attempted to dispute this ruling, my appeal was abruptly terminated.
I haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to take them to court on this one, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, I'm waiting for Master Berthaudin to announce the his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgement. I felt pretty good walking out of the courtroom, but you never know which way these things can go.
You may be wondering by now why I titled this post "Trouble in Paradise". It's a small point really, and it's something that came up in passing when Lindsay Mulholland was arguing the University's case. If I heard it correctly, she said something about the teachers (the Gordon Bell defendants, who were not participating in the Motion for Summary Judgement) being "ably represented" by another firm and I think she said that they wanted their part in the lawsuit to be separated from the university's defence.
I'm not able to quote any words to back up my feeling on this, but I got the impression that there was perhaps a disagreement in strategy between the two groups of co-defendants as to how they wanted to fight this case. And it would make a lot of sense. The way I see it, the University wanted to kick me out of the program without the need for a lot of messy procedural goings-on. So they found this clause in the Student Teacher contract which said the Principal had the absolute authority to remove a student from the school with no notice. (Ms. Mulholland made much of this clause in arguing her motion for Summary Judgement.) So they got Principal Arlene Skull to concoct a case against me, culminating in the ambush of Nov 21st 2011 when I was frog-marched to the curb and told never to come back to Gordon Bell.
Why would Arlene Skull participate in this scheme? My theory is that it's because she's a "team player", and if the Dean of Education tells here that this is what they want to do, she's going to do her part. And I have little doubt that if she expressed any reservations, the Dean would have told her not to worry, that they know what they're doing, that nothing can go wrong.
And now she's getting sued, and she doesn't like it. I imagine there's been a fair bit of acrimony between the University players and the schoolteachers over this. There's a certain irony in all this. I don't like it when people say "trust me". Even if they're well-meaning people who are on my side. I've come to believe in following my own instincts, even when people say I'm wrong. There are various reasons why this makes sense for me, and it came out once in a discussion with my colleagues at Gordon Bell, when they said I should "trust them" as to how to deal with a certain problem. I said: "I trust no one: I trust myself." This quote was later held up against me as an example of my bad attitude. But it's actually very good advice.
I'm guessing that there were some people who took part in the conspiracy against me who had some doubts about whether they ought to be doing what they were doing. But someone higher up said "trust me, we know what we're doing. Nothing bad can happen." And later on, when things started getting sticky, they said: "Trust me. We'll get the case thrown out on summary judgement". Well,, we'll see how that works out. If you ask me, there are times when people should listen to their own internal voice, and follow my advice: Trust no one....trust yourself.
This was the University's Motion for Summary Judgement, which they filed in January just days before I was about to begin discovery. A lot has happened since then. On January 11th I went to the home of Professor George Bush to try and serve him with a lawsuit for defamation, and his wife slammed the door on me and called the police. Then the University issued a no-trespassing order which I defied, resulting in them having me thrown in jail. In the meantime Professor Bush had gone to court to try (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against me on the basis of the "home invasion" of the 11th. Subsequently, I wrote up a new lawsuit accusing Professor Bush and his wife of defamation against me for claiming I tried to force my way into their home.
That lawsuit has been filed and served, and Brian Meronek of Darcy and Deacon has filed a Statement of Defence. You can read my claim against the Bushes over here; later maybe I will get around to posting the Statement of Defence. It's kind of interesting. Heather Bush denies that she "phoned" the U of W Security office to complain about me, but then goes on to say that whatever she said was justified on the basis that it was the truth. Only she doesn't actually admit that she even said anything. We'll see how that works out.
In the meantime, I was still holding on to the original lawsuit against George Bush...the one that prompted them to slam the door on me back in January. I never did get the chance to serve that one, because I was thrown in jail; and once I was out, the first order of business was to counter the accusation of home invasion. Once that was out of the way, and their Statement of Defence was on record, I then went downtown to Darcy and Deacon and served them with the original George Bush lawsuit, which deals with stuff he said about me in class in front of the other students. You can read that lawsuit over here.
There's one more case I have against the University. I've filed an Application for a Court Order instructing them to give me a grade on Assignment 5 from Professor Metz's course. I've posted the correspondence between myself and the University where Professor Metz claims that I did not complete the assignment, and I prove that I did. The University then said it doesn't matter if I did or I didn't, because they're not responsible for awarding grades to a student after he's been kicked out of school. I'm saying they are, and I'm going to court on that basis. You can read my Application here.
In the meantime, I was also appealing the F that Professor Bush gave me on this assignment. The Departmental Committee "reviewed" the grade and decided it was appropriate. So I appealed to the Senate Committee. After much prodding, I got them to admit that they ratified the F without even reading the paper (!). I was about to stick it to them when suddenly the chair of the Senate Committee, who had provided me with the damaging admission and assured me that I would be allowed to argue my case before his committee, disappeared and was replaced by someone more sympathetic to the needs of the University. I think they call that "being a team player". Professor Moulaison found that there was no need for me to argue my case, as it was "obvious" that the only thing to do would be to have me re-submit the paper for the Departmental Committee. (So they could read the paper first before ratifying the F!). When I attempted to dispute this ruling, my appeal was abruptly terminated.
I haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to take them to court on this one, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, I'm waiting for Master Berthaudin to announce the his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgement. I felt pretty good walking out of the courtroom, but you never know which way these things can go.
You may be wondering by now why I titled this post "Trouble in Paradise". It's a small point really, and it's something that came up in passing when Lindsay Mulholland was arguing the University's case. If I heard it correctly, she said something about the teachers (the Gordon Bell defendants, who were not participating in the Motion for Summary Judgement) being "ably represented" by another firm and I think she said that they wanted their part in the lawsuit to be separated from the university's defence.
I'm not able to quote any words to back up my feeling on this, but I got the impression that there was perhaps a disagreement in strategy between the two groups of co-defendants as to how they wanted to fight this case. And it would make a lot of sense. The way I see it, the University wanted to kick me out of the program without the need for a lot of messy procedural goings-on. So they found this clause in the Student Teacher contract which said the Principal had the absolute authority to remove a student from the school with no notice. (Ms. Mulholland made much of this clause in arguing her motion for Summary Judgement.) So they got Principal Arlene Skull to concoct a case against me, culminating in the ambush of Nov 21st 2011 when I was frog-marched to the curb and told never to come back to Gordon Bell.
Why would Arlene Skull participate in this scheme? My theory is that it's because she's a "team player", and if the Dean of Education tells here that this is what they want to do, she's going to do her part. And I have little doubt that if she expressed any reservations, the Dean would have told her not to worry, that they know what they're doing, that nothing can go wrong.
And now she's getting sued, and she doesn't like it. I imagine there's been a fair bit of acrimony between the University players and the schoolteachers over this. There's a certain irony in all this. I don't like it when people say "trust me". Even if they're well-meaning people who are on my side. I've come to believe in following my own instincts, even when people say I'm wrong. There are various reasons why this makes sense for me, and it came out once in a discussion with my colleagues at Gordon Bell, when they said I should "trust them" as to how to deal with a certain problem. I said: "I trust no one: I trust myself." This quote was later held up against me as an example of my bad attitude. But it's actually very good advice.
I'm guessing that there were some people who took part in the conspiracy against me who had some doubts about whether they ought to be doing what they were doing. But someone higher up said "trust me, we know what we're doing. Nothing bad can happen." And later on, when things started getting sticky, they said: "Trust me. We'll get the case thrown out on summary judgement". Well,, we'll see how that works out. If you ask me, there are times when people should listen to their own internal voice, and follow my advice: Trust no one....trust yourself.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
What Kind of Nut is Marty Green?
There are quite a few amateur psychologists out there who have been trying to diagnose my mental condition based on what I've been posting here and in my physics blog. Some of them have complained that despite having over three hundred posts to pore through, I'm still not giving them enough information to go on. Not that it's stopped any of them from concluding that my condition makes me unfit to be trusted with children.
Anyhow, it turns out that in the last year I've finally gotten around to a personal project that people have been urging me to do for almost twenty years, ever since my community access TV show went off the air. Yes, you can now check out clips from my old Math With Marty shows on YouTube. And it's true I look pretty crazy. If you need any more evidence as to why I don't belong in a classroom teaching kids, you should be able to find it here. It's funny how many of the tendencies noted by my professors and fellow students in their complaint documents are mirrored in the behavior recorded twenty hears ago. I've put up a few samples below.
This one starts partway through the show, but I'm clearly all over the board and not making sense. Here's another one:
Here I display a childish obsession with excrement and my disdain for established climate science. Then I mess up the calculation which was supposedly the whole point of the show, and at the very end I appear to be condoning illegal drug use.
Let's see what else I've got. Here's one where I express my disdain for the educational system and the teachers and professors:
One of the most serious allegations against me at the University was how I humiliated a guest who was invited to the classroom. In this next video clip you can see I've invited a guest, choir director and accompanist Barry Anderson. I think you'll agree that he seems to find the whole experience pretty embarrassing. (He never returned to the show after this episode):
And while we're at it, if you think I'm crazy, then how crazy is was my high school math teacher, Mr. Barsby?
And here's one more just for fun:
Anyhow, it turns out that in the last year I've finally gotten around to a personal project that people have been urging me to do for almost twenty years, ever since my community access TV show went off the air. Yes, you can now check out clips from my old Math With Marty shows on YouTube. And it's true I look pretty crazy. If you need any more evidence as to why I don't belong in a classroom teaching kids, you should be able to find it here. It's funny how many of the tendencies noted by my professors and fellow students in their complaint documents are mirrored in the behavior recorded twenty hears ago. I've put up a few samples below.
This one starts partway through the show, but I'm clearly all over the board and not making sense. Here's another one:
Let's see what else I've got. Here's one where I express my disdain for the educational system and the teachers and professors:
One of the most serious allegations against me at the University was how I humiliated a guest who was invited to the classroom. In this next video clip you can see I've invited a guest, choir director and accompanist Barry Anderson. I think you'll agree that he seems to find the whole experience pretty embarrassing. (He never returned to the show after this episode):
And while we're at it, if you think I'm crazy, then how crazy is was my high school math teacher, Mr. Barsby?
And here's one more just for fun:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
In which I Renege on My Promise
In the course of my last couple of posts, I got into a discussion with some correspondents about how I was presenting only one side of the story. They wanted to know the University's side. In particular, I told Ms. Redboots that I would spend the next few posts disclosing in detail all the accusations the University has made against me.
Since then, I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided maybe I won't do that after all. I'll tell you why not. The first thing I did was to post a link to the short summary of the charges against me which the Registrar provided to me back in December 2011. I pointed out that I had already posted this link last winter, in fact given it great prominence when I hilited in the Free Press talkbacks that went up last September when news of my lawsuit came out...so much so that it has received more hits than anything else I've posted.
So I was pretty surprised when after reposting this link, I got a really hostile response from some Anonymous posters who complained that the information in that letter didn't give enough details as to what I'd actually done. That got me thinking.
I was removed without warning from my Practicum on November 21st. I wrote the Director of Student Teaching three times that week, asking for details of why I had been suspended and what it would take to find me an alternate placement, and she refused to provide any information other than that my removal had been requested by the Principal, that my case had been turned over to the Registrar and that I would be contacted. There was nothing I could do but sit at home and wait helplessly, day after day, as my Practicum slipped away without the chance to seek another school placement and with no reason given. It was over two weeks before the Registrar informed me that I was being charged with non-Academic misconduct, and two more weeks before he finally gave me the summary of complaints which I have shared with you.
It would be four more weeks before he finally handed down his findings on those charges: namely, that I was guilty. In all that time, despite my repeated requests for further disclosure, he refused to give me any further details of the complaints.
So if you're complaining that I haven't told you what I did to get myself kicked out of university...why don't you complain to the Registrar? Because the very sketchy (and very disturbing) allegations contained in his letter are all that I was given to defend myself against.
To be sure, after releasing his findings, the Registrar produced a document which disclosed additional complaints against me, also without details. I then launched my formal appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee. The University scheduled my hearing for forty-five days after my written appeal was acknowledged, the maximum time allowed under the regulations. So it was guaranteed that I would not be able to get back to classes before the term ended, in the unlikely event that I succeeded in my appeal. And even then they refused to disclose the complaints against me, until the very last minute. I described the circumstances as to how that came about in this post. And even then they still refused to provide me with the "complaints" from Gordon Bell.
By the way, I had also tried to get disclosure by applying to the Ombudsman under the Freedom of Information Act. By law, the University is supposed to cough up anything it has on you within thirty days. But they stonewalled for months, while the Ombudsman's office just ignored my complaints. It took six months to get anything out of them, by which time I had long since lost my final appeal. And in any event the bundle of documents they finally gave me was so heavily censored that there was nothing in it that I didn't already have. So much for your FIPPA rights.
So when all is said and done, why won't I tell you now what was in those complaints? Well, to some extent I already have. I went through the letter from Lauralyn Cantor in quite a bit of detail here. But that's not the point. My point is that if you feel I haven't been forthcoming in telling you what I was accused of, how do you think I felt when I was trying to defend myself?
Then there is the question of my fellow classmates. From the hostility against me in the talkbacks, you have to assume that some of the same people who whispered about me behind my back are among my readership. If I'm not being truthful in what I've posted, why don't they come forward with their version? I'm not stopping anyone from posting comments. Let them go to town.
Anyhow, I really wonder why these people say they need to know more details when it's pretty clear that they've already made up their minds? Go back and read the comments to my earlier posts. They're pretty hostile. And the theme that comes through again and again is....they don't need to know the facts. To my critics, it's already obvious just from the way I write my blog that I'm an antisocial reject who has no business working with children.
So who needs the facts?
Since then, I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided maybe I won't do that after all. I'll tell you why not. The first thing I did was to post a link to the short summary of the charges against me which the Registrar provided to me back in December 2011. I pointed out that I had already posted this link last winter, in fact given it great prominence when I hilited in the Free Press talkbacks that went up last September when news of my lawsuit came out...so much so that it has received more hits than anything else I've posted.
So I was pretty surprised when after reposting this link, I got a really hostile response from some Anonymous posters who complained that the information in that letter didn't give enough details as to what I'd actually done. That got me thinking.
I was removed without warning from my Practicum on November 21st. I wrote the Director of Student Teaching three times that week, asking for details of why I had been suspended and what it would take to find me an alternate placement, and she refused to provide any information other than that my removal had been requested by the Principal, that my case had been turned over to the Registrar and that I would be contacted. There was nothing I could do but sit at home and wait helplessly, day after day, as my Practicum slipped away without the chance to seek another school placement and with no reason given. It was over two weeks before the Registrar informed me that I was being charged with non-Academic misconduct, and two more weeks before he finally gave me the summary of complaints which I have shared with you.
It would be four more weeks before he finally handed down his findings on those charges: namely, that I was guilty. In all that time, despite my repeated requests for further disclosure, he refused to give me any further details of the complaints.
So if you're complaining that I haven't told you what I did to get myself kicked out of university...why don't you complain to the Registrar? Because the very sketchy (and very disturbing) allegations contained in his letter are all that I was given to defend myself against.
To be sure, after releasing his findings, the Registrar produced a document which disclosed additional complaints against me, also without details. I then launched my formal appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee. The University scheduled my hearing for forty-five days after my written appeal was acknowledged, the maximum time allowed under the regulations. So it was guaranteed that I would not be able to get back to classes before the term ended, in the unlikely event that I succeeded in my appeal. And even then they refused to disclose the complaints against me, until the very last minute. I described the circumstances as to how that came about in this post. And even then they still refused to provide me with the "complaints" from Gordon Bell.
By the way, I had also tried to get disclosure by applying to the Ombudsman under the Freedom of Information Act. By law, the University is supposed to cough up anything it has on you within thirty days. But they stonewalled for months, while the Ombudsman's office just ignored my complaints. It took six months to get anything out of them, by which time I had long since lost my final appeal. And in any event the bundle of documents they finally gave me was so heavily censored that there was nothing in it that I didn't already have. So much for your FIPPA rights.
So when all is said and done, why won't I tell you now what was in those complaints? Well, to some extent I already have. I went through the letter from Lauralyn Cantor in quite a bit of detail here. But that's not the point. My point is that if you feel I haven't been forthcoming in telling you what I was accused of, how do you think I felt when I was trying to defend myself?
Then there is the question of my fellow classmates. From the hostility against me in the talkbacks, you have to assume that some of the same people who whispered about me behind my back are among my readership. If I'm not being truthful in what I've posted, why don't they come forward with their version? I'm not stopping anyone from posting comments. Let them go to town.
Anyhow, I really wonder why these people say they need to know more details when it's pretty clear that they've already made up their minds? Go back and read the comments to my earlier posts. They're pretty hostile. And the theme that comes through again and again is....they don't need to know the facts. To my critics, it's already obvious just from the way I write my blog that I'm an antisocial reject who has no business working with children.
So who needs the facts?
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Their Side of the Story
One of my more faithful readers has made the observation that it would be nice to hear the University's side of the story for a change. I'm a little hurt by that jab because I feel I've been bending over backwards to give them fair coverage. Almost everything I post about them is in the form of their own written communications, and I can't honestly see where any of it is out of context of framed in a misleading way.
At the same time, I feel I've been pretty restricted in what I'm able to disclose about my side of the story. I've posted all kinds of allegations from the other side about outrageous conduct on my part, without responding at all; the part about making a girl cry, the story about ridiculing a guest in the classroom, and a disturbing episode at Professor Bush's residence which I see that I haven't yet discussed in any detail. It's not that I don't want to respond: I just don't feel the time is right, strategically. I'd like to think that someday I'll have my say.
And by the way, the University has had ample opportunity to hear my side of the story. I showed up at my disciplinary hearing on March 23rd with a big file full of documents that I wanted to disclose, but the committee chair, Grace O'Farrell, cut me off shortly after the 30-minute time limit which she had decreed for my presentation, before I had gotten half-way through my presentation. And then the Board of Governors ignored repeated requests on my part to hear my further appeal, even though the University rules seemed to guarantee me that right. So I'm still waiting for my chance to tell my story.
But in the meantime the University's case against me has been emerging in dribs and drabs. The first thing to come out was the Registrar's letter to me summarizing the complaints that the Dean had submitted to him. Remember, I was kicked out of the practicum on Nov. 21st 2011 and the misconduct proceedings were initiated the next day: it wasn't until four days before Christmas that the Registrar finally disclosed the case against me, and even then only in the form of a bare-bones summary. I posted it on my blog last January, and even though the allegations made me look pretty despicable, I didn't post my response. Not because I didn't have a response, but because I wanted them to put their evidence on the table first. I'm still waiting. In any case, here is the link to that letter of Dec. 21st.
I don't think I've been avoiding opportunities to tell the University's side of the story. I was going through everything in sequence last winter until March, when I abruptly stopped blogging. At this moment I'm not quite sure why that happened. I had just gotten up to the point where they had banned me from the campus last winter, and I had asked for the right to appeal the ban. They refused to let me appeal, and they refused to disclose the grounds for the trespassing order. Again, I'd like to tell my side of the story, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don't feel it's in my best interests at this time. So we'll have to leave it at that for now.
In any case, my blog cuts off around that time with no further explanation, and doesn't resume until September, around the time when I launched my lawsuit against the University. Shortly after I filed, the Free Press picked up on the story and ran an article about it. There were a lot of talk-backs to the article, and they were generally pretty hostile. In particular, someone complained that the University's side of the story wasn't being presented. So I replied by posting a link to the Registrar's letter where he lists the accusations against me. As a result, that particular post got more hits than anything else on my blog....496 hits as of today, to be exact. "Ernest Goes to Jail" is a distant second at 279 pageviews. (Interestingly, both are beaten by "How A Motor Works" on my physics blog, with 591 hits.) The point is, I haven't been shy about telling people what the University says about me.
In the meantime, there's a pretty big hole in the narrative, which I see now that I've never gotten around to filling in. So let's see...first of all, the stuff I was posting in March was about things that had happened back in January. So there's a two-month gap that needs to be filled in. Here is the short story. I was suspended from attending class on the afternoon of the 11th, and notified of the trespassing ban later that evening. In other words, if I showed up on Campus, I would be arrested. I pretty much considered that to be a de facto expulsion, and told the University as much in my letter the next morning, when I asked permission to appeal. I said if they weren't willing to allow my appeal, they ought to refund my tuition in full.
My letter was answered by Vice-President Academic John Corlett, who said that the University was not willing to reconsider the trespassing ban, and accordingly he would undertake to arrange for a full refund of my tuition fees. There was a catch: I had to voluntarily withdraw from the program.
I didn't like that very much. If I withdrew voluntarily, wouldn't that mean I would relinquish any right to defend myself against the charges of Non-Academic Misconduct, which were still pending? Corlett assured me that the Registrar would be issuing his findings on those charges as soon as possible, so I decided to wait.
It took the Registrar another nine days to decide I was guilty of misconduct. Not a thing happened during that time interval except for a curious milestone that occured on the seventh of those nine days: the deadline for second-term voluntary withdrawal (without penalty) came and went. The University then calculated my tuition refund on the basis of VW after the second-term deadline. So instead of getting a full refund of my $4200 tuition fees, as promised by the VP, or at least my second-term fees refunded it full, I got instead a check for $1300. Slick move.
But that's hardly the point here. I told you I was going to present the University's case, and that's what I'm coming to. Because when Colin Russell found me guilty, he wrote a report to Lloyd Axworthy which I received a copy of. And that's what I want to share with you.
But let's wait until tomorrow for that. In the meantime, I notice I made an accidental pop culture reference two paragraphs ago which....well, here you go:
At the same time, I feel I've been pretty restricted in what I'm able to disclose about my side of the story. I've posted all kinds of allegations from the other side about outrageous conduct on my part, without responding at all; the part about making a girl cry, the story about ridiculing a guest in the classroom, and a disturbing episode at Professor Bush's residence which I see that I haven't yet discussed in any detail. It's not that I don't want to respond: I just don't feel the time is right, strategically. I'd like to think that someday I'll have my say.
And by the way, the University has had ample opportunity to hear my side of the story. I showed up at my disciplinary hearing on March 23rd with a big file full of documents that I wanted to disclose, but the committee chair, Grace O'Farrell, cut me off shortly after the 30-minute time limit which she had decreed for my presentation, before I had gotten half-way through my presentation. And then the Board of Governors ignored repeated requests on my part to hear my further appeal, even though the University rules seemed to guarantee me that right. So I'm still waiting for my chance to tell my story.
But in the meantime the University's case against me has been emerging in dribs and drabs. The first thing to come out was the Registrar's letter to me summarizing the complaints that the Dean had submitted to him. Remember, I was kicked out of the practicum on Nov. 21st 2011 and the misconduct proceedings were initiated the next day: it wasn't until four days before Christmas that the Registrar finally disclosed the case against me, and even then only in the form of a bare-bones summary. I posted it on my blog last January, and even though the allegations made me look pretty despicable, I didn't post my response. Not because I didn't have a response, but because I wanted them to put their evidence on the table first. I'm still waiting. In any case, here is the link to that letter of Dec. 21st.
I don't think I've been avoiding opportunities to tell the University's side of the story. I was going through everything in sequence last winter until March, when I abruptly stopped blogging. At this moment I'm not quite sure why that happened. I had just gotten up to the point where they had banned me from the campus last winter, and I had asked for the right to appeal the ban. They refused to let me appeal, and they refused to disclose the grounds for the trespassing order. Again, I'd like to tell my side of the story, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don't feel it's in my best interests at this time. So we'll have to leave it at that for now.
In any case, my blog cuts off around that time with no further explanation, and doesn't resume until September, around the time when I launched my lawsuit against the University. Shortly after I filed, the Free Press picked up on the story and ran an article about it. There were a lot of talk-backs to the article, and they were generally pretty hostile. In particular, someone complained that the University's side of the story wasn't being presented. So I replied by posting a link to the Registrar's letter where he lists the accusations against me. As a result, that particular post got more hits than anything else on my blog....496 hits as of today, to be exact. "Ernest Goes to Jail" is a distant second at 279 pageviews. (Interestingly, both are beaten by "How A Motor Works" on my physics blog, with 591 hits.) The point is, I haven't been shy about telling people what the University says about me.
In the meantime, there's a pretty big hole in the narrative, which I see now that I've never gotten around to filling in. So let's see...first of all, the stuff I was posting in March was about things that had happened back in January. So there's a two-month gap that needs to be filled in. Here is the short story. I was suspended from attending class on the afternoon of the 11th, and notified of the trespassing ban later that evening. In other words, if I showed up on Campus, I would be arrested. I pretty much considered that to be a de facto expulsion, and told the University as much in my letter the next morning, when I asked permission to appeal. I said if they weren't willing to allow my appeal, they ought to refund my tuition in full.
My letter was answered by Vice-President Academic John Corlett, who said that the University was not willing to reconsider the trespassing ban, and accordingly he would undertake to arrange for a full refund of my tuition fees. There was a catch: I had to voluntarily withdraw from the program.
I didn't like that very much. If I withdrew voluntarily, wouldn't that mean I would relinquish any right to defend myself against the charges of Non-Academic Misconduct, which were still pending? Corlett assured me that the Registrar would be issuing his findings on those charges as soon as possible, so I decided to wait.
It took the Registrar another nine days to decide I was guilty of misconduct. Not a thing happened during that time interval except for a curious milestone that occured on the seventh of those nine days: the deadline for second-term voluntary withdrawal (without penalty) came and went. The University then calculated my tuition refund on the basis of VW after the second-term deadline. So instead of getting a full refund of my $4200 tuition fees, as promised by the VP, or at least my second-term fees refunded it full, I got instead a check for $1300. Slick move.
But that's hardly the point here. I told you I was going to present the University's case, and that's what I'm coming to. Because when Colin Russell found me guilty, he wrote a report to Lloyd Axworthy which I received a copy of. And that's what I want to share with you.
But let's wait until tomorrow for that. In the meantime, I notice I made an accidental pop culture reference two paragraphs ago which....well, here you go:
Friday, March 29, 2013
Glen Moulaison Takes Over my Grade Appeal
I've been telling you the story of my grade appeal in Professor Bush's course, which began in January 2012 when I received an F on this term paper. An "F" is a pretty low grade in the Faculty of Education, and I thought it was a pretty good paper. So I tried to appeal my grade. The Registrar found procedural reasons for ignoring my appeal, but I persisted throughout the winter and spring, writing the University on at least half a dozen occasions seeking leave to appeal. Finally, at the end of the summer, the Registrar agreed to submit my appeal to the Departmental Committee. In October, they returned their verdict: my appeal was denied, and the F would stand.
In theory, I was entitled to one more level of appeal: the Senate Appeals Committee. After many delays and runarounds, I was finally contacted by the Chair of the Committee in November. I asked Blair to provide me with the Departmental Committee's reasons for rejecting my appeal, and he agreed to do so.
This is where it gets interesting. The Departmental Committee balked at Blair's request. Instead, they wanted me to re-submit the term paper. I objected to this. I didn't want them to re-mark the paper: I wanted their reasons for rejecting my appeal. Furthermore, I had initially submitted an original doc file of my assignment. Now they wanted the marked copy including Professor Bush's comments.
I wasn't interested in showing them Professor Bush's reasons for giving me an F. I wanted their reasons. That was the whole idea of the appeal. It's too easy for them to give me an F if they have all the reasons on paper in front of them. I wanted to know what an independent, objective panel would say about my paper on its own merits. That purpose would be completely defeated by handing over Prof. Bush's negative comments.
While this point was being argued back and forth via email, it emerged that in reviewing my grade, the Departmental Committee had neglected to even read the paper that was the subject of the appeal!
What happened next is still a little hard to say. What is known is that a month later, Danny Blair was no longer in charge of my appeal, and his place had been taken by Dean of Arts Glen Moulaison. Moulaison turned out to be a no-nonsense type of guy. Which is to say, he wasn't going to put up with any nonsense from me. On the 31st of January, he wrote me to say that in view of the facts, a meeting of the Senate Committee was not necessary. He was simply going to refer the matter back to the Departmental Committee to have them remark the paper.
I wrote back that I did not find this to be a satisfactory outcome. I wished to present my arguments in person to the Senate Committee; Danny Blair had told me I would be allowed to do so, and that was what I wanted. I did not hear back from Moulaison for three weeks. Then, in response to further prodding, he replied that he was indeed going ahead with setting up a meeting of the Senate Committee, but he had decided that my presence at that meeting was not necessary!
The Senate Committee met two weeks later, and I was subsequently informed that they had, without my presence, acceded to the demand of the Departmental Committee that I provide a copy of the marked assignment with Professor Bush's notes.
In the meantime, the University had obtained a Court Order severely restricting my right to communicate with University staff. I wrote back:
Moulaison wrote back the same day:
In theory, I was entitled to one more level of appeal: the Senate Appeals Committee. After many delays and runarounds, I was finally contacted by the Chair of the Committee in November. I asked Blair to provide me with the Departmental Committee's reasons for rejecting my appeal, and he agreed to do so.
This is where it gets interesting. The Departmental Committee balked at Blair's request. Instead, they wanted me to re-submit the term paper. I objected to this. I didn't want them to re-mark the paper: I wanted their reasons for rejecting my appeal. Furthermore, I had initially submitted an original doc file of my assignment. Now they wanted the marked copy including Professor Bush's comments.
I wasn't interested in showing them Professor Bush's reasons for giving me an F. I wanted their reasons. That was the whole idea of the appeal. It's too easy for them to give me an F if they have all the reasons on paper in front of them. I wanted to know what an independent, objective panel would say about my paper on its own merits. That purpose would be completely defeated by handing over Prof. Bush's negative comments.
While this point was being argued back and forth via email, it emerged that in reviewing my grade, the Departmental Committee had neglected to even read the paper that was the subject of the appeal!
What happened next is still a little hard to say. What is known is that a month later, Danny Blair was no longer in charge of my appeal, and his place had been taken by Dean of Arts Glen Moulaison. Moulaison turned out to be a no-nonsense type of guy. Which is to say, he wasn't going to put up with any nonsense from me. On the 31st of January, he wrote me to say that in view of the facts, a meeting of the Senate Committee was not necessary. He was simply going to refer the matter back to the Departmental Committee to have them remark the paper.
I wrote back that I did not find this to be a satisfactory outcome. I wished to present my arguments in person to the Senate Committee; Danny Blair had told me I would be allowed to do so, and that was what I wanted. I did not hear back from Moulaison for three weeks. Then, in response to further prodding, he replied that he was indeed going ahead with setting up a meeting of the Senate Committee, but he had decided that my presence at that meeting was not necessary!
The Senate Committee met two weeks later, and I was subsequently informed that they had, without my presence, acceded to the demand of the Departmental Committee that I provide a copy of the marked assignment with Professor Bush's notes.
In the meantime, the University had obtained a Court Order severely restricting my right to communicate with University staff. I wrote back:
I do not think it was proper for the Senate Committee to have made its decision without allowing me to present my case. Further, I am not comfortable carrying on a protracted discussion via email while I am under the restrictions of the present court order. I therefore do not recognize the legality of the Committee's decision, and wish to dispute it.
Would you therefore send me a link to (or copy of) the relevant University regulations under which the decision was made? As an alternative, perhaps you would suspend the decision and wait until such time as I am no longer under the present restrictions to my freedom of speech, which I anticipate will be sometime in September.Marty Green
Moulaison wrote back the same day:
Dear Marty,
The decision has been made by the Senate Committee and it has been communicated to you. It requires you to provide the original marked assignment by March 26. If the assignment is not received by that date, no further action will be taken regarding this appeal. The decision as to whether you comply with the Committee's decision is yours to make.
Glenn Moulaison
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Skirmishing with Aikins MacCaulay
EDIT: OH MY GOD it's not Aikins MacCaulay, it's Darcy and Deacon! Aikins are the lawyers for the schoolteachers, and Darcy are the lawyers for the university. The little fight I describe below is between me and Mr. Meronek of Darcy and Deacon! Apologies to the people at Aikins for the confusion.
Back in January, the lawyers for the University slipped something passed me that I didn't think was quite right. They amended one paragraph of their Statement of Defence. Originally, the paragraph read as follows:
24. In further answer to paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, these Defendants deny that they, amongst themselves, or with the other Defendants, conspired or combined to injure the Plaintiff as alleged or at all; and, state further that the Plaintiff was properly suspended from his couses at the Faculty of Education, one of the consequences of which was the Plaintiff's removal from his teaching practicum.
For some reason, the lawyers decided they wanted to argue this point a bit differently, so on January 14th they filed an Amended Statement of Claim, reading as follows:
24. In further answer to paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, these Defendants deny that they, amongst themselves, or with the other Defendants, conspired or combined to injure the Plaintiff as alleged or at all; and, state further that the Plaintiff was properly suspended from his couses at the Faculty of Education. The Plaintiff's removal from his teaching practicum occurred independently and prior to his suspension from the Faculty of Education.
At the time they didn't notify me, and I didn't find out until a month later. I checked with the Queen's Bench Rules, and as far as I can see, they are allowed to make unannounced changes only for clerical errors. For substantial changes, they need written consent from me; or failing that, if I choose to be a hardass, they can go to the court and file a motion for leave to amend. Of course, there's a downside for me being a hardass...if the court decides there was no reason why I shouldn't have given them written consent, they can assess costs against me for the motion.
Either way, they didn't ask for consent, and they didn't file a motion. So I filed a motion calling on the Court to strike their amendment as having been done in contravention of the Queen's Bench Rules.
I'm not sure I care how Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Defence reads, and if they had bothered to ask me I'm not sure whether I would have opposed it or not. The thing is: there are rules for these things, and I want to know if the Courts are going to enforce the rules or not? Hence, my motion.
A motion of this kind normally goes on the Master's Uncontested List. The idea is that the other side might not choose to oppose the motion. Certainly in this case they've made an amendment and they want it to stand. But to accomplish that goal there is no need to oppose the motion. They can simply agree to the motion, and then go back to Square One and ask me for consent. That's more or less what I was expecting.
But when we appeared in court this morning, opposing counsel announced (to my surprise) that they would indeed be opposing the motion. I'm not sure what grounds they're going to argue. I would have thought I have them dead to rights. But you never know. Anything can happen in court. So now we're going to be filing affidavits and briefs, and eventually we're going to argue the motion before a Master.
We'll see how that works out. If you'd like to read my Notice of Motion, you can find it here.
Back in January, the lawyers for the University slipped something passed me that I didn't think was quite right. They amended one paragraph of their Statement of Defence. Originally, the paragraph read as follows:
24. In further answer to paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, these Defendants deny that they, amongst themselves, or with the other Defendants, conspired or combined to injure the Plaintiff as alleged or at all; and, state further that the Plaintiff was properly suspended from his couses at the Faculty of Education, one of the consequences of which was the Plaintiff's removal from his teaching practicum.
For some reason, the lawyers decided they wanted to argue this point a bit differently, so on January 14th they filed an Amended Statement of Claim, reading as follows:
24. In further answer to paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, these Defendants deny that they, amongst themselves, or with the other Defendants, conspired or combined to injure the Plaintiff as alleged or at all; and, state further that the Plaintiff was properly suspended from his couses at the Faculty of Education. The Plaintiff's removal from his teaching practicum occurred independently and prior to his suspension from the Faculty of Education.
At the time they didn't notify me, and I didn't find out until a month later. I checked with the Queen's Bench Rules, and as far as I can see, they are allowed to make unannounced changes only for clerical errors. For substantial changes, they need written consent from me; or failing that, if I choose to be a hardass, they can go to the court and file a motion for leave to amend. Of course, there's a downside for me being a hardass...if the court decides there was no reason why I shouldn't have given them written consent, they can assess costs against me for the motion.
Either way, they didn't ask for consent, and they didn't file a motion. So I filed a motion calling on the Court to strike their amendment as having been done in contravention of the Queen's Bench Rules.
I'm not sure I care how Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Defence reads, and if they had bothered to ask me I'm not sure whether I would have opposed it or not. The thing is: there are rules for these things, and I want to know if the Courts are going to enforce the rules or not? Hence, my motion.
A motion of this kind normally goes on the Master's Uncontested List. The idea is that the other side might not choose to oppose the motion. Certainly in this case they've made an amendment and they want it to stand. But to accomplish that goal there is no need to oppose the motion. They can simply agree to the motion, and then go back to Square One and ask me for consent. That's more or less what I was expecting.
But when we appeared in court this morning, opposing counsel announced (to my surprise) that they would indeed be opposing the motion. I'm not sure what grounds they're going to argue. I would have thought I have them dead to rights. But you never know. Anything can happen in court. So now we're going to be filing affidavits and briefs, and eventually we're going to argue the motion before a Master.
We'll see how that works out. If you'd like to read my Notice of Motion, you can find it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)