Thursday, April 10, 2014

"You made them look like idiots..."

One of my more articulate detractors had reappeared after an absence of nearly a year. My old nemesis Ms. Redboots weighed in the other day to make more excuses on behalf of the University. You'll remember I had accused numerous faculty members of deliberately lying to get me kicked out of school and even thrown in jail. I challenged the university to sue me for defamation: otherwise, they were basically admitting that my charges were true.

Ms. Redboots thought I was behaving improperly. Since I had already sued the university for kicking me out of school, the proper course of action would be for me to shut up and let the dispute work its way through the courts. That way the truth would come out.

Of course, that's not the way it works. The University is doing everything it can to stop my various cases from being heard before the courts. Their main argument has been that as a University, they are outside the supervision of the court system: no matter what they did to me, true or false, malicious or otherwise, it is not the business of the Courts to meddle in what are essentially "academic matters."

Their latest gambit was to try and have my incriminating evidence thrown out on the basis of inadmissibility. You'll remember that after they had criminal charges laid against me for events stemming from the alleged "home invasion", I sued them for defamation on the basis of those allegations. This created a problem for the University, which they didn't recognize until it was too late.

The problem was simply this: 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. The criminal case was heard first, and so I subpoenaed the professors who had slandered me. I was almost sure this would prompt them to drop the charges, so I could hardly believe my eyes when they showed up in court to be examined on the witness stand.

The examination was a disaster for them! Toward the end of the day, a few Law Courts staffers had drifted in to catch the tail end of my examinations of the Bushes. "You made them look like idiots," one of them remarked when I ran into him recently in the courthouse. More importantly, I made them look like liars. I promptly gathered up the evidence that I had collected in the criminal trial and filed it in the civil procedings.

The university cried foul! "You can't take evidence from a criminal case and use it in a civil case", they complained to the judge. "Oh yes you can", he told them (in so many words). The evidence was accepted into the record.

Ms. Redboots complains that she's tired of getting nothing by my personal spin on these things, calling it a "massive exercise in self-indulgence". "Why don't you just post the court documents and the dates of upcoming hearings, and let your audience show up (or not) and see for themselves what's going on", she asks.

I am going to take her up on this, and will gladly post the date of my next court hearing. I look forward to seeing her in person, and I expect her to wear her red boots so I will recognize her. (And I promise not to sue her for anything she might have said about me.)  In the meantime, it turns out the transcripts of my criminal case examinations are already available online. (Yes, the ones where I "made them look like idiots".) So she can judge for herself who's lying and who's telling the truth. Here they are, from September 3rd and again from September 25th of last fall.

Read 'em and weep, Lloyd Axworthy. Read 'em and weep.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Why Don't They Just Sue Me?

Over the last few months, I've been documenting some of the lies my professors told to get me kicked out of university and even thrown in jail. In this blogpost I tell about how Professor Dave Bell lied. In this post you can read about how Mrs. Cantor admitted to lying about me in her letter to the Dean. In this post I tell about some of the lies told by Don Metz told, and in this post some more of his lies. Vice-President Neil Besner was caught lying on the witness stand here. And Professor Bush was caught in a web of lies here and here.
You might be wondering: how do I get away with this? Why don't they sue me for defamation? And why don't they get an injunction to shut down my website, like they did for that guy who was posting things about Sam Katz and the Jews? 
I don't think there's another website anywhere in the civilized world where a guy like me is running up and down the backs of all these university professors, and they're just sitting back and letting him get away with it. For example, there's that physics professor who got fired from the University of Ottawa, and then he wrote an article where he called another prof a "house negro" for U of Ottawa President Alan Rock. He's getting sued. Why not me?
I know what the haters are going to say. They'll say that I'm an insignificant worm who's not worth the attention, and the University doesn't need to give me any more publicity by dragging me to court. Maybe so. But that's no excuse for letting me slander them up and down the internet. I got over five thousand hits on this blogsite last month. That's gotta hurt. 
I say the reason they won't sue me is because they know I'm telling the truth, and they'll lose if they go to court. And as long as they keep quiet and let me get away with it, more and more people are going to believe my side of the story: that they are liars. Every day they don't sue me is one more day that they are admitting I am right. 
They've already spent over a hundred thousand dollars to try and prevent me from getting my case heard in court. Money is no object for them. If they had any sense of honor they would defend themselves against the charges I've made in this blogsite. The fact that they are afraid to do so speaks volumes about what really happened. 

Friday, March 7, 2014

What's Wrong with Teachers

One of the little incidents that I took a lot of flak for back in university was the day I stood up to ask if any of my classmates had as much trouble as I did in following the type of PowerPoint presentations which were popular with most of our profs. I was immediately howled down from all sides. It seems everyone was fine with the Prof just standing there and reading off the bullet points from his power point slides.

It turns out I'm not the only one who thinks there's something wrong with teaching by Powerpoint. Here's someone who posted a pretty good article on Slate Magazine in the form of a mock PowerPoint show. I think she makes some pretty good points.

I'm not saying this article proves I was right. I'm just saying it shows that this is the kind of thing people should be looking at when you're taking a course called Philosophy of Education. And I wonder why I was the only one out of fifty students who thought it was worth talking about?

And it's not like it wasn't even part of the curriculum. We had to memorize this little pyramid thing, which you see everywhere:

I think the way I asked the question was: where did other people think PowerPoint presentations should fit on this pyramid. Because for me they're pretty much off the scale. (You may remember one of the haters critcizing me for "putting other students on the spot"...this is the only possible thing she could have been talking about.)

Like I say, the point isn't whether I was right or wrong. The point is why aren't any other students asking this type of question? And why am I earmarked as a troublemaker because I'm the kind of guy who does?

POSTSCRIPT: The haters, who have been consistently claiming to not remember any specifics...even claiming that their  "general impression" have more credibility than any "factual details"... have jumped back in the fray with a vengeance, suddenly claiming to remember long-repressed particulars of my outrageous conduct.  Now they're playing the "rudeness" card. They would have more credibility if it weren't for Mrs. Cantor's testimony at my criminal trial, where she admitted that her original charges of outrageous rudeness were based on nothing more than the hysterical reaction of a few girls in the class to my perfectly polite and respectful behavior. Not to mention that these newly-graduated professional teachers who hold themselves up as arbiters of proper conduct can't resist calling me "prick" and "asshole" and much worse, all the while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

It's Not Their Fault

Last week I posted a little story about my first encounter with Arlene Skull, the principal of Gordon Bell, whose complaint to the University got me kicked out of my practicum after only six days in the classroom. I didn’t tell you what she said about me; I just told a pretty innocent story which might have made Mrs. Skull come off as a bit humorless. I’m guessing that angle might have rung true with some of her colleagues. But that’s just a wild guess.

A reader posted a comment which got us into the field of psychology. One thing led to another, and I more or less proposed that with respect to my fight with the University, the battle lines have been drawn pretty much according to personality types: the majority, who are going to stand on the side of the system, and the minority who are going to support the rebel. The facts of the case aren’t all that big a factor.

This prompted a fairly detailed response from a poster, who clearly identified with the authoritarian camp. In general, it’s not all that rewarding for me to argue with these people, but this woman said something so priceless that I can’t let it go without comment. You can read her entire comment if you back up one blogpost, but here’s the good part:

“…Whatever your opinion of your actions and your posts may be, the general consensus is that you are wrong. You rejected the hands offered to you, rejected the reality of your own flaws and problems, and set off on a self-righteous quest for what you believe you deserve. On the way, the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality as well, but they don't negate your mistakes and flaws.”

What is most interesting about this little passage is how true to form she runs as an authoritarian. Like all the other haters, this one has no idea why I got kicked out of university, nor does she care. She knows I’m guilty. How does she know? Because “the general consensus is that you are wrong.”  And she is genuinely baffled as to how I can be so blind as to persist in believing that I’m right in the face of the opinion of the majority.

Then she said something about how I "rejected the hand" that was extended to me. She must mean the time I wouldn’t sit down for coffee with the professors, as though this illustrates some flaw in my character. Well, if being a hard-ass is a character flaw, color me guilty. The professors knew exactly where I stood: if they had any complaints about my conduct, this was a serious matter and I wasn't about to discuss it over coffee. I wanted to see it in writing. When I told this to Professor Bell, he backed right down, and said in that case he would just let the matter drop. Of course, he was lying. He didn’t let it drop…he went straight to the Dean. 

But the real kicker is her conclusion: that on the way, “the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”….but that doesn’t matter because those “errors” don’t negate my own “mistakes and flaws”.

She’s not very clear on just what were my “mistakes and flaws” other than not going for coffee with Professor Bell. I didn’t know you could get kicked out of school for that. But she’s pretty quick forgive the University for its…what did she call it….errors of morality?

She has no idea what I supposedly did that was wrong, but if she’s been reading this blog, she must have some idea what “moral errors” the university committed. In case her memory needs refreshing, here is a partial list, compiled from incidents I’ve reported elsewhere on this site:

1. Professor Bush gave me an F on a term paper, which I appealed. The Departmental Committee under Professor Appell ratified the F, saying it was deserved. But they didn’t bother to mention the fact that they never read the term paper! When I got this admission out of them, Professor Moulaison (the head of the Senate Appeals Committee) promptly canceled my appeal in midstream.

2. Professor Cantor asked us to write a confidential essay about our personal belief systems. When I wrote something critical of another prof, she went to the Dean and told him about it.

3. Professor Metz and Professor Bush lied about me of trying to force my way into the Bush residence. As a result, I was charged with forcible entry. At the same time, I sued Bush for defamation. At the civil trial, Metz and Bush swore they never accused me of home invasion. But then at the criminal trial, when confronted with incriminating emails, they had to admit that they did.

4. In spite of their lies, the University is still backing Metz and Bush to the hilt, paying top bucks for Bush’s lawyers. Their latest move is to try and get those incriminating emails from the criminal trial excluded from the civil trial.

5. Professor Cantor sent a letter to the Dean accusing me of insulting a classroom guest, even though she now admits she personally didn’t believe I had done anything wrong. The Registrar used this as a key point to get me kicked out of school. Mrs. Cantor knows what happened to me, but she still hasn't gone back to the Dean or to Lloyd Axworthy to set the record straight.

This is only a partial list of the things I’ll prove against the university once my case goes to trial. I don’t know about you, but by comparison, I think my crime of “not going for coffee with Professor Bell” seems pretty insignificant.

But that’s not how the haters see it: in fact, Miss Authoritarian has a justification for the University’s “moral errors”. Did you notice it? It’s just a little mind-boggling, if you think about it. I’m not making this up…here’s what she actually said: that along the way, they were “drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”.

Interesting use of what’s called the “passive voice”. They didn’t make errors…they were drawn to make errors. By whom were they drawn? I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that she’s thinking of yours truly. In other words, the University isn’t to blame for all those lies and slanders. It was my fault. They’re just innocent victims of my trickery.

UPDATE: Mr. Authoritarian has come back with a long list of reasons he says justify the University kicking me out of school, mostly based on things I did to defend myself after they already kicked me out. But if you read them over carefully you'll see he hasn't got one single thing I actually did in class while I was a student.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

How I Met Mrs. Skull

I haven't told you much about anything that happened in my practicum at Gordon Bell, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to tell you about how I met the principal.

It was Hallowe'en, and I had dressed up in my regular work outfit...which is to say, the work I did over the summer as a construction surveyor. Helmet, steel-toed shoes, reflective vest, tool-belt. I had just arrived in the morning and I was standing in the hallway when Mrs. Skull came up to me. "What brings you here today?" she asked. Something inside me told me to play along, and I answered, "I heard there's a heating register that isn't working."

Mrs. Skull said "follow me", and led me to the third floor...I think it was Mr. Phaneuf's class. She led me in and said, "This gentleman is here to fix the heating register." Mr Phaneuf looked at me and said, "No he's not." He was smiling. I was smiling. I turned to her and said, "I think the expression the kids say is 'you've been punk'd'". Mrs. Skull was not smiling, not one little bit.

I don't think she liked me. I'm wondering if my story rings true for Mrs. Skull's colleagues? I'm guessing there's a few teachers out there saying, "yes, that's Arlene for sure." I'm just saying...

Maybe one day I'll show you the email Mrs. Skull sent to the University three weeks later to get me kicked out of the practicum.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Marty Green's Children At Risk?

My readers may have noticed that there has been quite an upsurge of activity among the haters recently. Many of the negative comments seem to be the work of one or two very energetic correspondents. You can recognize them pretty easily. But there was an interesting post the other day from a woman who claimed to be a former Child and Family Services worker. Based on what she'd read on this blog, she was concerned that my children were in some kind of danger; or at least, that they were growing up in a psychologically abusive environment.

We all know how well the CFS protects abused children. But maybe this woman is on to something? My son actually came out last year with some pretty disturbing stories about growing up. You can listen to one of them here, on the CBC website. Michael's segment is about 21 minutes into the program if you want to skip ahead.

Michael elaborates further on the situation in this on-line essay, where he describes his father as "less than normal". I'm going to admit that I don't come off looking that good. But that's the chance you take when you put yourself out there. Check it out and judge for yourself.

And while you're at it, hears an old video showing my other two kids when they were young:

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Teacher's Code of Ethics

I guess I opened a can of worms the other day when I mentioned the question of "ethics". I was saying that the University has a motion before the courts to throw out all the incriminating evidence I've collected against Bush and Metz. It's a legal maneuver, and they might get away with it...but is it ethical, I asked.

The first hater to jump into the fray was Miss Fricken. She said was the one who was unethical, because I disrupted classes that other students had paid to attend. I thought that was a bit of a stretch. Even if what she accused me of was true, is that really an ethical question? One thing led to another, and finally one of the haters chimed in, claiming that the fact I was fighting my expulsion instead of quietly accepting it and moving on with my life showed that I didn't understand the Manitoba Teacher's Code of Ethics.

It's funny because that took me back to the day the very first volley was fired in the campaingn to kick Marty Green out of school. Back in Professor Bell's class, he used to present us with little scenarios for group discussion, which often involved those types of ethical dilemmas which are familiar to philosophy students as one form or another of the "rowboat problem". In this particular scenario, we were to put ourselves in the shoes of a student teacher who was assigned to classroom observation, and was then shocked at the way the teacher was mean to one of the young kids. The student teacher remembered that before she went to class, the principal had hinted to her that she might have some concerns about what was going on in there. What should the student teacher do? I said she should tell the principal what she saw.

One of the other students in my group disagreed with me. She not only disagreed, but she told me in no uncertain terms that I was being unprofessional: that it was against the Manitoba Teachers' Code of Ethics to do what I had suggested. If I had something to say against a colleague, I was obliged to speak first to that colleague before going "up the chain" to lodge a complaint at a higher level. That student was Jennifer Babcock.

I told Jennifer I disagreed that I was being unprofessional. Jennifer retorted that I was simply wrong: people who knew more about these things than me had devised rules of conduct, and I had better follow them. I toild her I didn't think I needed to read someone's "Code of Ethics" to know what was right or wrong.

After class, I noticed Jennifer out in the hallway speaking in hushed tones to Professor Bell. Later that evening, I got a call on my cellphone. It was Professor Bell. He told me that my dominating presence in class discussion was causing a chilling presence which inhibited others from participating. I immideiately told him if he had any complaints he should put them in writing and send them to me by email. He refused, and I told him the conversation was over.

The next morning,  I sent Bell the following email:
Pursuant to your phone call of yesterday evening, if you have any complaints about my behavior in class, please convey them to me in writing so that I may respond to them.
Bell was not willing to put anything in writing. He replied:

   Sorry if my approach went over poorly.  I don't have an office and I am on campus only  around class time. This really isn't something I would want to trade emails about. If you wish to talk I always stick around after class for an hour or more.  Maybe we could meet for coffee. If you feel I am off base on this we can simple drop the topic.  I will leave it up to you.
Sincerely,   Dave Bell

But Professor bell did not "simply drop the topic", as he said in his letter. He went to the Dean. And so did Jennifer. And from that day, no one said a word about my behavior in class until the Dean's secretary contacted me. By that time they had put together a dossier on me which would ultimately get me kicked out of school, including complaints from Bell, Metz and Cantor. I've told you about Cantor's complaint, and how she admitted on the witness stand that it did not represent her own true feelings about my behavior. Bell's lie was even more blatant: in his letter, he simply says "My attempt to discuss this situation with Marty was ended abruptly and impolitely by Marty." No, Professor Bell. It was ended when you twice refused to put your complaints in writing.

Article Seven of the Manitoba Teacher's Code of Ethics reads:
"A member directs any criticism of the professional activity and related to the work of a colleague to that colleague in private. Only after informing the colleague of the intent to do so, the complainant may direct in confidence the criticism to appropriate officials through the proper channels of communication."
I already said that I don't believe much in Codes of Ethics, but Jennifer Babcock clearly does. Was she following the Code of Ethics when she went behind my back to Professor Bell, and later to the Dean, to complain about me? Was Professor Bell when he told me he would "simply let the matter drop" and then went straight to the Dean? Was Professor Cantor when she wrote her poison pen letter?

Or does the Code of Ethics not apply to people like them, whose are so pure of heart that even their shit doesn't smell?