Monday, December 16, 2013

Professor Bush Describes the Home Invasion

I told you yesterday that the University had a problem with the accusations by Professor Bush that I had attempted to force my way into his home. The problem they had was that there were two simultaneous court cases going on...a civil case where I sued Bush for defamation, and a criminal case where I was charged with...well, that's hard to say. But it had something to do with a home invasion. At least that's what the Crown told the Judge when they locked me up last winter. We'll come back to that later.

The problem facing the U of W was that the lies they needed to tell in order to beat me on the criminal case were different than the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the civil case. They might have thought about that before they had me thrown in jail last winter, but they didn't. And now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

So what exactly is the problem, according to me? Well, there are two pretty different stories going around about what happened on the evening of January 11th. Today I thought I'd tell you how Professor Bush described the events in question immediately after they took place. How do we know what he said? We have his sworn affidavit: and this is what he says he said:

"I did contact Don Metz, professor with the University on the evening of January 11th, 2013. Both Metz and I were involved in respective grade disputes with Martin while Martin attended the University. As Heather (Mrs. Bush) and I were concerned that Martin had followed me to my home, I phoned Metz as a cautionary measure in case Martin attended his home. I informed Metz that Martin had telephoned my home and then proceeded to disregard my instructions and attended my front door. I further informed Metz that Martin had attempted to give Heather papers. I also informed Metz that Heather shut the door on Martin."

And that's it. Nothing about a home invasion, or trying to force my way into his house. So what was the big fuss about? Why were police called, and the University notified? Bush explains it this way, filling in the background with the following details:

"On January 11 2013, at approximately 5:00 pm, I received a phone call at my residence from Martin. Martin identified himself and indicated that he had papers to give me. I immediately asked how Martin got my home number as it is an unpublished phone number. I informed Martin that it was inappropriate for him to be calling my home and advised him that any communication should be directed through my legal counsel.
"After getting off the phone I went into the basement. I have been informed by my wife...that while I was in the basement Martin attended my home. At approximately 5:15 pm...I was coming up from the basement at the time Heather was shutting the front door. While visibly shaken, Heather informed me that Martin had just attempted to give her papers to deliver to me.
"Martin had attended my home minutes after I informed him over the telephone that I did not want to have any contact with him. In consideration of Martin's disregard for my instructions, and the fact that Heather was rattled by her interaction with martin, I called the Winnipeg Police."

And that's his story. Still nothing about a home invasion. Yes, he says his wife was "rattled" by her interaction with me, but he doesn't give any details as to why she would be. In fact, Bush is quite clear that the reason he called the police was simply that he felt it was inappropriate that I had disregarded his instructions by coming to his home. Even though he says I was only there to deliver some papers.

It doesn't seem like much of a home invasion. Maybe he's leaving something out? It turns out he is. How do we know? Because we have the sworn testimony of Don Metz, who disclosed that there was just a bit more to their phone call than Bush had let on. We can't exactly accuse Bush of lying, because a careful reading of his affidavit shows that he only said "this is what I told Don Metz"....he never says "this is everything I told Metz." So it's it's possible there more...and as we see from Metz's account, there was indeed. Here it is in Metz's own words:

"On the evening of Jan 11 2013 I received a telephone call from George. George advised me that:
  • Martin had telephoned his home earlier that evening;
  • during their telephone conversation George advised Martin that is was inappropriate for him to be contacting him at his home;
  • subsequent to their telephone conversation, Martin attended the front door of George's home that same evening;
  • George's wife, Heather Bush, answered the front door.
  • Martin did not advise Heather of his purpose for attending the Bush's home;
  • Martin attempted to give papers to Heather to give to George;
  • Martin put his hand in between the door and the door frame while waving a paper towards Heather;
  • Heather attempted to shut the door as Martin pushed back on the door to prevent it from closing;
  • Ultimately, Heather was able to shut the door; and,
  • the Winnipeg police had been contacted.
It's not terribly different from Bush's account of the conversation, except for the added detail that I had extended papers through the door towards Mrs. Bush; that she had attempted to shut the door, and I had "pushed back to prevent it from closing". It still doesn't add up to a home invasion; Metz's carefully chosen words are consistent with the theory that I had momentarily resisted the shutting of the door simply to stop my arm from being crushed. But more importantly, Metz then goes farther than Bush by stipulating that the above information "summarized my entire telephone converstion with George." Again, absolutely nothing about a home invasion.

And there you have it. It's hard to see from the preceding testimony how I did anything other than unsuccessfully attempt to serve papers on Mr. Bush. It certainly doesn't support the accusations I made in my Statement of Claim, whereby I say that Bush accused me of trying to force my way into his home. But there's the rub...or, as we say in Yiddish, dâ liegt der hund bagrâben: this is where the dog lies buried! Those affidavits were sworn for the express purpose of warding of the civil suit for defamation. And so they deny saying the things I accuse them of saying. Since I have no witnesses, it's their word against mine. 

Having constructed this impregnable fortress of affidavit evidence to hide behind, they subsequently  moved for Summary Judgment on the defamation case, arguing that I had no arguable case in law. But in the meantime, they had the small matter of the criminal case to deal with, where I had supboenaed Metz and the Bushes to testify as to the events which had got me banned from the University campus and subsequently thrown in jail. And to accomplish that purpose, they were going to need something a bit more lurid than me getting the door slammed on my arm.

There were only two eyewitnesses to what happened at the front door that, and Mrs. Bush. When we return, I'll show you how Mrs. Bush described the innocent-sounding events as set out above by her husband.


  1. Well Marty, it sounds to me like either they falsely accused and had you briefly imprisoned for a crime they know you didn't commit (which surely is illegal), or they intentionally lied in an affidavit while trying to escape legitimate defamation charges (which surely is illegal).

    I've been watching this story for a while, haven't been here in over a year tho. Sad to see this is not finished, but very happy to see your persistence and professionalism in seeing this through to its just end.

    They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine. Keep the wheels spinning Marty, they will finish the job eventually. And when they do, you won't be the only one happy to see justice be done.

    Offtopic, are you still planning to be a teacher? Surely you've grown as a person and as a scholar in these past few years. You're not a young man anymore Marty, but you sure expand your intellectual horizons as if you are. While you would probably make an excellent teacher, maybe you can do society more good as a lawyer, and maybe eventually a judge. Not everyone can defend themselves and their legitimate interests like you've been doing. I hope you know that.

    1. Thanks, Anonymous. Your good wishes are very much appreciated. But don't get too hopeful about justice. If there's a chance I'll win this thing, it's still years down the road. And the people who cheated me will never suffer any personal consequences. In theory they can be charged with perjury for lying in court, but that never actually happens...instead, they'll just retire with nice fat pensions and the university will cough up the money for any settlement I might get.

      As for becoming a teacher...sure, if they'd let me back in, I'd go back tomorrow. But again, that's not going to happen. Even though people at the highest levels must know by now that they've been duped into this thing by the hysterical accusations of my enemies, by now they've got too much stake in it to back off. They're going to stave it off as long as they can, and hope I die of old age before I get my day in court.

      So the idea that I might actually win this thing is still a bit of a long shot. I think the criminal case is in the bag, but of course there's no payoff if you win that. I'm just lucky I'm my own lawyer cause I'd be stuck with at least $20,000 in legal bills if I'd had to hire someone to defend me. But in the meantime, I'm taking it one day at a time and having quite a bit of fun. So I've got no complaints.