Tuesday, October 22, 2013

The Gory Details

In two more weeks I'll be in court arguing the University's Motion for Stay of Discovery. I filed my Brief just the other day. You can read it online here.

It's a really long brief but it's worth reading if you want to know exactly how the University has screwed me over since the day two years ago they removed me from the teaching practicum at Gordon Bell. What emerges is a picture of how they have relentlessly and shamelessly frustrated my right to disclosure, thereby making it impossible for me to answer the charges against me. The present motion, to put a hold on my right to oral discovery while they proceed with their Motions for Summary Judgment, is just a continuation of what they've been doing for the last two years.

I conclude my Brief with a kind of post-script, where I justify the fact that I'm pushing hard to move forward with my case. It's not exactly a legal argument, but I think it sums things up pretty well. I've reproduced it here for your enjoyment:

Epilogue (to the Plaintiff's Motions Brief)

84.       As a Canadian citizen of the Mosaic persuasion, the Plaintiff has frequent occasion, whether in Temple or in ordinary social situations, to encounter co-religionists  who are members of the legal profession, wherupon the Plaintiff has often taken advantage of the opportunity to discuss his experiences as a self-represented litigant.

85.       In one such conversation with a well-known Member of the Bar, a co-religionist of the Plaintiff whom we will hereinafter refer to as Mr. K, the Plaintiff expressed his indignation at learning of a recent case where it took twenty-two years from the time the action was launched until it was argued in Court. The Plaintiff recalls expressing his frustration using words similar to “the legal system is a farce”; whereupon Mr. K admonished him that it was not so; that the system was not “broken”, and it was more likely that lack of sufficient diligence on the part of counsel  was to blame for such inordinate delays of justice. Mr. K further expressed the opinion (or perhaps it was a boast) that working within the rules, he could get any case to trial in 18 months (or 24 at the most), provided he saw fit to devote his fullest efforts to that end.

86.       In the present case, the Defendants have frequently expressed resentment (as described in the foregoing) at the efforts they have had to exert in response to the Plaintiff’s actions. We, for our part, believe we are doing nothing more than using the Queen’s Bench Rules for their intended purpose; namely, the speedy and expeditious determination of justice. Perhaps it is commonly accepted within the Legal Profession that many of the “deadlines” mandated by the QB rules are not meant to be taken literally, but we do not feel bound to acquiesce to this state of affairs simply because it has become the norm. Indeed, given the age of the Plaintiff, if we were to allow this case to languish for twenty-two years before going to trial, the issues would most likely have become moot in the most definite sense of the word before then.

87.       We therefore feel fully justified in agressively taking up the challenge which Rocky has laid down before us: namely, to get our case to trial inside of two years. At the time of this filing it will have been thirteen months, so we feel we are still “on track” to make target. We urge the Court to respect our desires in this regard, even if it may seem that in practise “speedy justice” has become more the exception than the rule. 


October ______ 2013                                              Martin Green


  1. Lovely post.

    Say, Marty, you write that they removed you from your teaching practicum. That is an interesting interpretation of events. Is it possible you removed yourself?

    If a set of rules exist, implicit and explicit, and someone refuses to conform to those rules, haven't they disqualified themselves from the game?

    To help you see the picture, Marty, imagine if you were ever to become a teacher, and you had a class to teach, and one lone student, in a class of fifty or one hundred students, continually interrupted your teaching to tell you that your methods are out of date and therefore you should be interrupted and chided and prohibited from completing the goal you were hired for and which you have a moral and ethical obligation to complete; would you then, Marty, appreciate that you can't get your job done for the other 50 normal students, and would you then freely neglect all the normal ones, and your obligations, just for the lone disruptive element?

    Think about it Marty. Are you a man of your word? If so, can you allow others to be so too?

    Just because you think you have an insight into pedagogy doesn't mean you actually do, nor that you could hope to outsmart all educational professionals on this earth.

    If you ever were to become a teacher then, based on your current attitude, you would deserve all hell breaking loose in your class and no one would gain even one speck of knowledge. Is that what you want?

    Marty, just say Moo ... your bovine intellect is revealing itself with every masturbatory blog you post.

  2. Yes, then they would have a case for kicking me out of my university classes. But where is the case for kicking me out of the practicum?

    In any case, It might be helpful if you would try to focus your comments on the topic which I have actually posted.

  3. Maybe, just maybe there is no "speck" of knowledge to be gained in an education class and maybe just maybe Marty is correct because the teacher education methods may indeed be outdated. If a student challenges you then deal with it but to throw him out and have him barred resulting in his arrest. Come on, a little excessive I would think. Just to let you know, the following happens every day in a public school but the teacher is not allowed to throw students out and file restraining orders against them resulting in their arrest, namely " that you can't get your job done for the other 50 normal students, because of the lone disruptive element". Nowhere in any classroom management textbook does it say to gang up on the trouble maker and file restraining orders when poor little teacher feels challenged by poor little Marty, or at least I think so, but you can correct me if I am wrong.
    Keep fighting Marty there are people who believe!

    1. Try not to take literally what Fritz says I did in class. I'm pretty sure he wasn't there. I certainly never told my profs I thought their teaching methods were outdated. As to whether I was a disruptive element, that's something I hope to argue in court. And I'm not putting down my side of the story until the University puts down theirs.

      If any of my former classmates would like to come forward and confirm the things Fritz is saying about me, I would welcome them to do so here; or, they can get in touch with the University's lawyer, Mr. Meronek of Darcy and Deacon.