Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Litigation: A Look Behind The Scenes

I told you I would be telling you more about what happened in the criminal case so far, but in the meantime the civil front has been heating up. It's hard for me to tell you all the goings on, because some of them involve strategic points where I am holding some cards close to my chest. But recently one of my anonymous correspondents wrote as to how he was finding the inside look at legal proceedings to be very interesting and educational. So I thought I'd give you a bit of a peek at some of the back-and-forth between myself and opposing counsel. It's actually a lot of "forth" with very little "back"...as an example, here is an email I recently sent to the other side, summarizing some (but not all!) of the outstanding issues and stating my position. You won't be able to figure out exactly what I am talking about in every instance, but I think it gives the general flavor of what's going on. Without further ado, here it is:

Thank you for receiving the Particulars which I gave Lindsay when I saw her last week. I had previously indicated that I would not be holding you to the original 20-day deadline with regard to your Statement of Devence in Green v Anchan, but now that we have appeared before Master Lee I feel that all other matters are back on track. I will therefore expect your response to my Statement of Claim by the end of next week, failing which I will, as you understand, proceed accordingly.
 
Further to these and other proceedings, I am attaching herewith a list of the priorities which I presented to Lindsay at our last meeting. I have added a couple of items for you information; I think it is best that we have these all on record.
 
Thanks,
 
Marty Green
-------------------------
PRIORITIES
1.         I wish to serve the Statement of Claim CI13-01-83238  (Green v Anchan, or “Breach of Duty of Care”) on the defendant Jane Doe whose identity is known to the Univeristy. I will be asking the Court to instruct the University to either accept service on her behalf, or to provide me with contact information so I can have her served before October 29th which will be 6 months from the filing of the claim.
2.         With regard to CI12-01-79879 (Green v Tram, or “Conspiracy to Injure”) I wish to proceed with discovery and accordingly would like to argue the three associated motions together. In addition to the relief I have already asked for, I will now be asking further that in view of the defendants’ unresponsiveness in terms of the interrogatories, that further discovery shall be held in front of a master rather than a court reporter.
3.         With regard to CI13-01-82216 (Green v Bush, or “Defamation”) I intend to cross-argue their Motion for Summary Judgment with a Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings Pending Discovery.
4.        I believe I am going to need to add the WSD as a co-defendant in Green v Tram. I had earlier broached this subject with Mr. Mackwood and in view of the circumstances I think I need to go ahead with this.
5.       In the matter of Green v Bush, I will be moving for leave to add additional defendants, based on new information which has recently come to light.
6.       I have prepared a list of witnesses in Green v Tram who were minors at the time of the events, and I wish to negotiate an understanding whereby I will be permitted to examine them. If opposing counsel is not willing to discuss this, I will need to put it forward in the form of a motion.

     *     *     *     *     *     *
As usual in such circumstances, opposing counsel did not respond.

9 comments:

  1. Mountain ... Molehill.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WTF you moron, the UofCrappyW f*@ked Marty over, what do you not understand? You must be blind and illiterate because you certainly have not read the ENTIRE blog! How would you have liked it if this had happened to YOU? You would have probably cried and rolled over and played dead you pussy, at least Marty has the BALLS and the BRAINS to see this through and fight for justice. They hoped he would just quit, they counted on it, he didn't and they will hopefully regret it. Molehill+lies=mountain. Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anonymous. I wouldn't worry too much about the yahoos who post here. For me its an interesting observation of human nature the extent to which people enjoy siding with the powers of authority in squashing the rebel.

      Delete
    2. Fight for justice? Nonsense!

      Is it justice to disturb a whole class full of students who paid for the course?

      Just because Mr. Green thinks he has a better way to teach doesn't mean that was the time or place to rant about it. I'm a bit of a rebel myself, but I sure don't agree with how Marty is wasting so many resources that could be better used for something constructive.

      Delete
    3. Martinez you stupid fuck, they didnt kick you out for being different, or disrupting class, or fighting back. No, they kicked you out BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO EVEN MEET OR TALK TO THEM. ITS YOUR OWN FAULT!!!!!!!

      Delete
  3. So as a public school teacher when I have a student that disturbs a whole class full of students is it ok to throw them out and then have them banned from school and then jailed when they return? Or is this the classroom management style the UofW is advocating?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't speak for Marty on this one, but I can't imagine that he'd appreciate the fact that you're building a Straw Man in order to mount a counter-argument. Considering the logical and procedural approach Marty's taking, I think that, at the very least, if you're going to support him, at least make a passable argument in the process. It's beyond ridiculous to assume that just because the University administration uses a certain approach to handling what it perceives to be an issue, all departments, instructors, and students therein also assume this is the "correct way" to handle a student who has been identified as disruptive.

      Sorry, Marty. Not meaning to call down your supporters, here. I just think that being backed by fallacious arguments isn't support at all.

      Delete
  4. My supporter is indeed correct in perceiving that it is a serious problem when the University automatically treats in-class dissent as a disciplinary issue. It is no small concern that students, observing seeing how this is done, will incorporate similar attitudes into their own behavior. Whether that helps my case is another matter.

    The real issue that the University will have to argue is whether the had to deal harshly with me because I was simply a disruptive, obnoxious presence in class, as they seem to be claiming, or whether they over-reacted to legitimate questioning and criticism. That's a tough one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nope, its because you refused to even talk to them, you're dumb

      Delete