Wednesday, August 27, 2014

In Which I Reply to Mr. Meronek

I have told you how Brian Meronek, counsel for the U of W, had warned me to cease and desist from contacting new U of W president Annette Trimbee, telling me that if I continued to do so I would be in violation of the recognizance imposed on me when I was released from Headingly last year. (You can read here how the Trimbee's predecessor, Lloyd Axworthy, had gotten me thrown in jail on trumped-up charges.)

Mr. Meronek's argument was that although I was prohibited from contacting Lloyd Axworthy, the ban also applied to his successor in the job of U of W President. I wrote back to Mr. Meronek on Monday. Here is what I told him:

Dear Mr. Meronek:
I have reviewed the terms of my recognizance and I find no indication that the prohibition relates to the office rather than the individual. Would you please review it yourself and determine whether or not I am correct? (If I am wrong, then I presume that you saying that according to the terms of my recognizance, I am now permitted to contact Lloyd Axworthy, since he no longer holds the office which he held at the time he was named in the court order.)
I have to assume that you advised Ms. Trimbee to ignore my communication on the grounds that it was a violation of a court order. If on reconsideration you determine (as I believe you will)  that you were incorrect in so advising her, I hope you will promptly correct this misinformation, and tell her that there is no legal obstacle for her to communicate with me, or to re-open an investigation into my grade appeal. Once again, I appeal to Dr. McCluskey to come forward and inform the new President as to what he knows about the way I was mistreated.
In the meantime, I will wait two more weeks before proceeding with an application for judicial review, in order to allow Ms. Trimbee, on reconsideration, to allow me the opportunity to state my case to the Senate Committee, as Dr. Blair had originally decided before being overruled by Dr. Moulaison.
Marty Green, P. Eng.

We'll see how that goes. In any event, the question may become moot by Friday morning. That's when Judge Krahn of the Provincial Court is going to deliver her decision on the criminal charges laid against me at the behest of the University. 

Monday, August 25, 2014

Mr. Meronek Warns Me to Back Off

I told you yesterday how I sent a letter to new U of W President Annette Trimbee, asking her to re-open the grade appeal which was shut down by Associate Dean Moulaison last year after I exposed fraud on the part of the Departmental Appeals committee. As I explained, it was impossible for me to go over Moulaison's head because the University had just obtained a court order preventing me from contacting Lloyd Axworthy.

But Lloyd is gone, so I felt I was at liberty to contact his successor. That raised the hackles of U of W lawyer Brian Meronek. I received the following letter yesterday from Meronek, warning me to cease and desist:

Dr. Mr. Green;
    I have been provided a copy of  your letter to Dr. Trimbee. As the prohibition against contact relates to the office( and not just the individual), you are being asked to refrain from contacting any U of W official . All communications are to be directed through this office. I trust you will honour this request.

Brian J. Meronek, Q.C.

We'll see how this plays out...

Sunday, August 24, 2014

In Which I Send A Letter to the U of W

Lloyd Axworthy is gone and the U of W has a new president, Annette Trimbee.

After the University had me thrown in jail last year on trumped-up charges, I managed to get out on bail only by agreeing to conditions whereby I wasn't allowed to contact various U of W staff including Lloyd Axworthy. This was a problem because at the time I was fighting a grade appeal, and I had just gotten some very good dirt on the Departmental Review Committee. Danny Blair, the chairman of the Appeals Committee had agreed that I would be able to present my findings to the Senate, when suddenly he was removed as chair and replaced by Glen Moulaison, who promptly reversed Blair's decision and terminated my appeal. I wanted to complain to Lloyd Axworthy but I couldn't, because of the court order.

So when Axworthy left and Trimbee came in, I thought it would be a good time to renew my appeal. Two weeks ago, I wrote her the following letter:

Dear Dr. Trimbee:

My name is Marty Green and in the winter of 2012 I was expelled from the Faculty of Education amidst some very disturbing accusations of misconduct on my part. Since then I have been trying to vinidicate my reputation. I have maintained from the beginning that the accusations against me were malicious. The professor who was most instrumental in getting me expelled, Don Metz, was subsequently responsible for having me thrown in jail on the basis of his accusation that I attempted to break into the home of one of his colleagues. I have steadfastly maintainted that Dr. Metz was lying when he made that accusation, and I expect to be vindicated on that charge when the Judge Krahn delivers her verdict on August 29th.

I can assure you that the accusations made by Professor Metz which led to my expulsion in 2012 were just as false and malicious as his subsequent accusations which caused me to be put in jail a year later. But Professor Metz was not alone in making allegations against me. I was never given the opportunity to respond to all of the charges made by various parties, but in at least one case, those charges have since been retracted. Professor Cantor, whose accusations against me were extremely damaging at the time, has since admitted that she never believed that I had done anything wrong, but was pressured into writing me up at the behest of the Associate Dean, John Anchan.

I believe Dr McCluskey (to whom this letter is being copied) knows that everything I have said is the truth, and if you ask him he will confirm it. I am writing you now because September is approaching and the University of Winnipeg still has the opportunity to partially redress the wrong done to me by readmitting me to the Faculty of Education so I can be certified as a teacher.

But there is a second matter on which I also require your response. At the time I was thrown in jail, I was in the midst of a grade appeal with respect to a failing grade I was given on a term paper in Professor Bush’s Philosophy of Science class. (This is the same Professor Bush whose home I was accused of trying to break into a year later.) The appeal was being conducted by Professor Blair. It had been disclosed to me that the Departmental Committee had ratified Professor Bush’s failing grade without even reading the paper in question, and Professor Blair had decided on that basis that I should be allowed to present my case in person to the Senate Appeals Committee (of which he was the chair). Subsequently, for reasons which have never been disclosed to me, Professor Blair was replaced as chair of the  committee by Dean Moulaison, who promptly reversed Professor Blair’s decision and terminated my appeal.

At the same time, I was released from prison under the condition that I was not allowed to contact senior staff of the University. So I was not able to appeal to then-president Lloyd Axworthy to overturn Dr. Moulaison’s ruling and restore my rights to due process as established by Professor Blair. Those conditions are still in place; however, Dr. Axworthy is no longer president, and the court order does not prevent me from contacting to you, his successor.

I am therefore writing you now to ask if you will restore my right to appeal the failing grade, including the right to speak before the Senate Committee, as promised me by Dr.Blair. I think this is only fair. If you do not respond to this request by Friday, Aug 22nd, I will conclude that I have exhausted my internal avenues of appeal in this matter and will then file an Application for Judicial Review.

I thank you for your consideration in these matters.

Marty Green

Dr. Trimbee did not respond.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

The Schoolteachers Win A Round

Life got a little more complicated last month when Justice Chris Martin announced his decision in the Schoolteacher's Motion for Summary Judgment which we argued back in May. You can read the full text of his decision online here. It's not very encouraging.

Justice Martin said my Statement of Claim "falls within that category referred 'the product of wishful, fanciful or imaginative thinking on behalf of the plaintiff'.  There is no substance to it.  There is no air of reality to it."

I think that's a little unfair, and that's what I'm going to have to try and convince the Court of Appeal. The question at issue was whether I could prove malice on the part of the Schoolteachers (Tram and Skull, the Gordon Bell defendants, brought the motion separately from the University of Winnipeg defendants, ("the Professors".) If you've been following this blog, you'll know I told you last month the main arguments I was relying on. They included:

1. The undisputed fact that Tram and Skull concealed their accusations against me from other staff members who might have supported me; and,

2. The undisputed fact that Skull and the University bypassed my Due Process rights under the Practicum Manual and moved for immediate expulsion under the emergency procedures. 

3. The fact that when Tram recorded that I had "tapped" a student on the shoulder, Skull went on to report to the University that I had "grabbed" him by the shoulder.

How does Justice Martin answer these arguments? He answers them by ignoring them. He simply says that whatever discrepancies I found in the Defendants arguments were at once "minor and understandable". 

When we appeared before Justice Martin last month for oral arguments, I told you how he went to great lengths to make sure I felt that my arguments were being heard. And I told you that I when I left the courtroom, I did feel that whatever opinions the Judge had formed prior to the hearing, at least he had listened to my arguments.

I don't feel that way anymore after reading his written decision.

Monday, June 9, 2014

The Criminal Trial Concludes

My criminal trial on charges of Trespassing, Mischief, and Forcible Entry concluded last week, after four days of testimony and argument which began last September. Judge Krahn has reserved her decision until July 7th, so we'll have to wait until then to hear what she has to say. But no matter what the outcome, the trial has been an unmitigated disaster for the University of Winnipeg.

The University thought that they could convict me of trespassing without having to say why I was barred from the campus in the first place. A naive reading of the Petty Trespassing Act might seem to support this notion; after all, if I trespass in your back yard, you don't need to have a reason to tell me to get out. And the Petty Trespassing Act does not explicitly distinguish between private individuals and other "private" property owners such as shopping malls and universities, where the public is generally admitted without restriction. But if the statutory law does not make this distinction, then the common law most certainly does, as I argued in my summation before Judge Krahn. No one has ever been convicted for trespassing on "quasi-public" property without the court inquiring as to whether the manager of that property had a legitimate reason for wanting the person banned.

The ironic thing about this case was that the University had a perfectly legitimate reason to ban me - namely, that I was a psychotic sociopath who had just attempted to force his way into the home of one of his professors. I'd say that's a pretty good reason to ban me from the campus.

But when I asked the Crown Attorney to provide me with a list of the witnesses he intended to call, I saw that there was no one on his list who could testify as to the facts of the home invasion. Well, if he wasn't going to call those witnesses, then I was. And that's when things started to go south for the U of W.

The problem was that the home invasion story was a crock, and everybody knew it. I had called on Professor Bush at his home to serve legal papers on him; Professor Bush had sent his wife to the door, and she refused to accept the papers, slamming the door on me. Then the Bushes got the bright idea of accusing me of attempting to force my way in, and started a round of phone calls that ended up with the U of W issuing a no-trespassing order against me.

So on the first day of the trial, I called the Bushes and various other people who had been involved in those phone conversations, including Professor Metz, Academic VP Neil Besner, Security Chief Martin Grainger, and union rep Lisa McGifford. I knew about all those phone calls because I had sued Professor Bush and his wife for defamation, and in response they had filed affidavits describing all the discussions they had had that evening, and basically denying that they had accused me of trying to force my way in.

And that was their problem. There are two ways of defending youself against a defamation charge: either you say, "I never said that", or you say, "I said it, and it's true". For purposes of the civil case, the Bushes had chosen Option A. But it would turn out that to make the criminal charges stick, they needed to argue Option B. And that's where I had them.

As I told the Judge, the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the criminal case were different from the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the civil case.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Who reads this blog anyways?

I'm no waiting for two court decisions which will have a big impact on the way my fight with the U of W proceeds: in Civil Court, the decision pending on the Schoolteacher's Motion for Summary Judgment on the conspiracy/defamation claim, and in Criminal Court, Judge Krahn's pending decision on the criminal trespassing charges against me. We'll see how those come down.

In the meantime this blogsite had small milestone last month when it surpassed my other blogsite, "Why I Hate Physics", to become my all-time leader in hit counts. The Physics blog has been a big thing for me; I started it in May 2010, and had no idea if anyone was reading it until almost a year and a half later, when I noticed Google Blogger tracks your hit counts. I was pretty excited to see that I had been getting about 200 clicks a month, and that somehow motivated me to post more frequently. And that in turn led to a steady rise in my hit counts, which are now averaging about a hundred clicks per day. Here is the chart of my cumulative hits, which have now reached just over 70,000 (there is a glitch in the Google software which misprints the years on the time axis, doubling the scale; I really started in May of 2010:)

Meanwhile, I started blogging about my fight with the U of W in January of 2012. Of course, that got hits right away, with some notable peaks which you can see in the graph below:

The first little peak was when I started telling the story; then, when the Appeals Committee threw out my appeal in March, I took the blog down temporarily because I didn't want to compromise my legal options. Over the summer, I figured out my options and when I filed in September 2012, it was noted by the newspapers; that's the second big peak in the graph. The third big peak was when I got arrested and sent to jail. The next three peaks correspond to various extended discussions where classmates joined the fray, bringing us up to the present time. And as I said, last month my cumulative total went over 70,000 for the first time passing the mark held by my Physics blog.

Stay tuned for more exciting developments....

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Bald Assertions and Self-Serving Affidavits

I've been telling you about my recent appearance before Justice Martin to appeal the schoolteacher's Summary Judgment decision in my conspiracy claim. All present...that is, the judge, counsel for the schoolteachers, and myself...agreed that the issue was evidence of malice. And I was arguing hard to show that the only reasonable explanation for the way they kicked me out of the practicum was that they were out to get me. Why else the secrecy in putting together the complaints, and the application of the expedited removal procedures so I wouldn't have the chance to answer the charges against me? But the Judge seemed to be most interested in my closing argument...that the serious charges leveled against me on the Monday morning when I was expelled were completely different from the nonsensical accusations made against me only two days earlier in a Friday phone conversation between the Vice Principal and the Director of Student teaching. Didn't that suggest they just pulling these complaints out of their ass?

But in the end, it may not even come to that. Summary Judgement is a legal procedure invoked when the moving party can demonstrate that there is "no genuine issue for trial". What does this mean? It is easiest to understand it if we compare it to a Motion to Strike, which is the other way of getting a case thrown out of court. In a Motion to Strike, the Court will assume that everything in the statement of claim is provable; the Defense must show that even so, there is no legal cause for action. In other words, I say: "You did so-and so...."; and they say, "Even if we did...then so what?" That's a Motion to Strike.

A motion for Summary Judgement is different. In Summary Judgment, I say: "You did so-and-so..."; and they say, "No we didn't...and here is our evidence." If they have evidence which calls into question my Statement of Claim, I have to respond with counter-evidence of my own. This is sometimes called the "shift of onus." But it's not really a shift of onus. The ultimate onus always remains on the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue for trial.

I think in the end, the Judge might find that it doesn't matter about my evidence, because the Schoolteachers didn't meet their "first-stage onus" to show that there was no genuine issue for trial. My argument here was based on the details in my Statement of Claim. In my claim, I laid out seven factual circumstances to support my allegation of malice. The Schoolteachers responded by a blanket pleading bona fides, arguing that they were motivated by protecting the welfare of their students. But they didn't respond to my seven points item by item. In particular, they didn't even attempt to deny that the accusations were collected in secret, and that no opportunity was given for me to respond.

Does this meet their first-stage burden on summary judgement? I told the Judge I didn't think it did. I told him it shouldn't be enough for them to baldly assert lack of malice and then throw it back at me to prove the opposite. Maybe that's enough if my original pleadings contained no more than a bald assertion of malice; but once I itemized the circumstances, as I did in my Statement of Claim, they should not be allowed to displace without responding to each of my particulars.

Oddly enough, I could find little support for this position in the jurisprudence. I found dozens if not hundreds of cases where the Judge admonishes the responding party for failing to adduce hard evidence, and attempting to rely on "bald assertions and self-serving affidavits". But not a single case where the Judge castigated the moving party for the same thing. I told the Judge that this wasn't right; the evidentiary burden on the responding party should not be greater than that on the moving party.

So I urged him to find that the Schoolteachers, in relying on nothing more than "bald assertions and self-serving affidavits", had failed to meet their first-stage burden. Like I said, there are countless cases where judges have used exactly that phrase in ruling that the responding party had failed to meet its second-stage burden. I'm just saying what's fair for the goose...

But we'll have to wait for Justice Martin's decision to see what he says. In the meantime, I argued another case yesterday in court: it was the fifth and final day of my trial for Criminal Trespassing, which had been on hold since just before Christmas. My biggest worry had been that the Crown would wise up and drop the charges to spare the University a humiliating defeat, but to my surprise we made it through to the end of the day, both sides making their closing arguments, and the Judge Krahn expressing an expectation that she would be providing a written decision, possibly when we return on July 7th. When we return, I'll tell you how it went in court.