Friday, December 20, 2013

Some 'splainin to do...

I've told you George and Heather Bush's story of the horrifying events that led to me being banned from the U of W, Lloyd Axworthy authorizing an extra detail of four guards being hired (at a cost of $10,000) to keep a lookout for me, and eventually me getting thrown in jail and held for nine days. If you believe their story, maybe I'm not the kind of guy you'd trust to be in charge of children. But first there were are a few small details that I was going to ask them to explain.

Now, before I get my ultimate day of reckoning, there are a hundred and one ways the legal system can still screw me over. If I was in the University's kangaroo court, it would have already been a done deal...accused, "tried" (in absentia), convicted and sentenced. But in the real courts, I theoretically had the right to cross-examine my accusers. I say "theoretically" because I still had to fight like hell to get them subpoenaed, arguing two separate pretrial applications before Provincial Court judges. But in the end, the system did not deny me the opportunity to cross-examine the Bushes. And so I was able to confront them with the following questions:

When I phoned in advance of knocking on the door, why did Mr. Bush slam the phone down on me?

Weren't the Bushes worried after the phone call that I might come to their door?

When I subsequently rang the doorbell, why did his wife answer the door instead of him?

When I asked to see her husband, why didn't she call Mr. Bush to the door?

When I tried to give her papers, why did she refuse to accept them?

Why did she slam the door on me?

While she was struggling against me (as she claims) for about a minute to close the door...why didn't she call for help?

When her George later wandered up the stairs and found Heather "all white and shaking", why didn't he say: "Why didn't you call for help?"

When he phoned his buddy Don Metz minutes later to report what had happened, why did he emphasize the fact that he had called police because I had disobeyed his (supposed) instructions not to come to the fact, other than telling Metz that Heather had shut the door on me, he claims to have said nothing to Metz about me trying to force my way into his home (and Metz backs him up on that). Why would he leave out that small detail?  

Here are the answers they gave when I asked them these questions in court.

Why did George Bush slam down the phone when I called him? He says "I told you in no uncertain terms that you had no business calling...if you wanted to contact me, it should have been through the university."

Actually, that's not what he actually told me...he said I should contact his lawyer. But on the phone, he didn't find it necessary to tell me his lawyer's name. And he refused to let me explain the purpose of my phone he told the court: "Why would you, why would you, a student of the univerity, come to the, phone a professor or a faculty member, why would you want to do that?"

A former student has never phoned you?

"Never, never. It's always done by email or I've contacted, I've met the person in person. No one has ever called me at home."

Mr. Bush went on to summarize his reasons: "I just didn't feel appropriate that you would call me personally at home. I just didn't want to talk to you". No reason, I asked him? "No."

Okay, so that's why he slammed down the phone without giving me a chance to explain the purpose of my call. Then I went on to ask him if my phone call didn't set his spidey-sense tingling in any way that something might be wrong. Weren't there already some things that had happened that had caused him and his wife to be on edge about me?

"No. None whatsoever."

That's not what his wife had said. I confronted George with Heather's testimony: wasn't it just the day before that she had told you I was stalking her on her web page? Mr. Bush allowed that on second thought, yes, they had certainly talked about that. And then he "remembered" being concerned about a visit to his church that he had also reported as being suspicious. (There happens to be an after-school math program run out of the same church that George Bush attends, and he found it highly suspicious that I would be trying to volunteer in that program.) So it wasn't just the phone call, then?

"No, we were also concerned."

And yet with all these supposed precursors, the phone call didn't cause him to be disturbed or alarmed about what I might be planning to do next?

"No, not at all." Not in the slightest, I asked? "Why? It's finished. I asked you not to call. I asked you to deal through the university, and as far as I was concerned, that was it. I never dreamt in my wildest dream that all of a sudden 10 minutes later you'd knock on the door. I was downstairs doing something in the basement."

Interesting. You'll notice that here he's already answering the next question, which I haven't yet asked him: why did his wife come to answer the door instead of him? And he has three different reasons:
  •  Having told me not to contact him, he has complete confidence that I will follow his instructions
  • I didn't come to their house until ten minutes later and by then neither he nor his wife connected the ringing of the doorbell with the earlier phone call.
  • He was downstairs doing something in the basement, so (as he subsequently explained) he didn't even hear the doorbell himself.
It didn't take me long to demolish those three reasons. First I confronted him with his testimony before the Provincial Court judge when he applied for (and was denied) a protective order against me:
 "Marty Green....has continuously demonstrated his defiance and complete disregard for authority including enforcement officers. He was forcibly removed from Gordon Bell High School and he was forcibly removed from the University of Manitoba. In each case he disregarded authorities and deliberately returned to those facilities to continue his agenda."
All the "facts" he cited above were things he knew about me long before the evening in question. And yet when he hung up the phone on me, he claims to have been perfectly satisfied that the situation had been dealt with, that I was simply going to do what he said? I asked him how he could reconcile his apparent complacency with what he claimed to know about my character. Mr. Bush didn't like that. He turned to the Judge and said: "Is this terribly critical?" The judge told him to just answer the question: when I told him to leave, did he think that I would leave him alone? "Well", said Mr. Bush, "we felt, I felt that he would."

And when the doorbell rang "minutes" later, you didn't put A and B together?"

"I wasn't...the bell doesn't ring in the basement."

Oh yes it does. Oh yes it does. I had him cold there. I knew it from his testimony before the Provincial Court, and he knew I after some verbal sparring, he finally conceded: "No...there, there are two bells, and I, it may have, I subconsciously may have heard something. I don't recollect hearing the bell."

But it does ring downstairs, doesn't it?

"Okay. Good. Well, then you know that then."

Yes I do, Mr. Bush. And so does the court.

Meanwhile, I've knocked out two of the three reasons he gave as to why his wife answered the door instead of him. The fact is that I had called his home, and that phone call was of great concern to both him and his wife. And after first denying that the doorbell even rings downstairs, he reluctantly admits to having heard the doorbell ring "ten minutes later", if only "subconsciously". (But back in January, before the Provincial Court, he had testified that he did indeed hear it ring.) So both of them were concerned about me, and they both heard the doorbell ring. Why then did neither of them connect the ringing of the doorbell to the earlier phone call?

The key to this was the ten-minute interval. Ten minutes isn't that much time, but it just might possibly be enough for a frightened couple to forget that a deranged stalker was after them. Either way, that ten minute interval is critical to the credibility of the Bushes' entire narrative. And that's where the story gets interesting.

We'll talk about that when I return.


  1. Anonymous wrote
    "All I have to say after reading this appalling information is what is wrong with you, and how did you ever think that you were fit to work with children."

    If you can not see by now that Marty is fighting for a principle-justice, over the blatant willingness of the university and its employees to railroad him with false accusations and lies then there is something fundamentally wrong with you little miss anonymous!

    1. Thanks, Anonymous. Some of the haters who post here are probably the same people who actively spread rumors about me behind my back when I was a student, and now they have to justify their actions to themselves. No one likes to face up to the fact that they did something wrong. There are a number of my fellow students, and even certain professors out there who know exactly what they did but still haven't gone back to the university to repudiate their allegations. They're the ones that are unfit to work with children...not me.

  2. We dont need to believe their "story" to think you are unfit around children. I saw it in class every day while you were enrolled. You're going to ask for a story, the answer is no. You will just be looking to find some wording you could twist around into your favour. So what if his wife answered the door? Why would someone show up to their house after they had been told not to. You are a crazy person, your practicum school had no use for you, your classmates had no use for you. Give it up. You are not a martyr. This will not benefit anyone, you are just a thorn in the side of many. You're a loser plain and simple.

    1. As you can see, from the point of view of my detractors, the real unfairness in all this is that I am forcing them to disclose the details of the complaints against me. In the U of W star chambers, they don't have to do that...they can convict me without disclosing the charges, letting me call witnesses, or cross examine my accusers. All they have to do is call me crazy, a loser, and a troublemaker. In the real courts, they don't get away with that quite so easily. So it's only natural that's why Miss Anonymous wishes I would just go away.

  3. As a teacher and a parent I would not want you to be a teacher. While I had never seen you teach, I have seen presentations put on by you, I have seen your behaviour in class. Gordon Bell felt the same way. Sorry.

  4. You make no sense.
    Just because I have never seen you raise your children doesn't make me think you are unfit to be a parent. Your narrow mindedness and willingness to believe authority is very troubling and you should reconsider the facts that have been presented here because they are overwhelming in Marty's favor. You will inevitably pass on, no inculcate your progeny with this same vacant disregard for the analysis of the truth based only upon your feelings and not a thoughtful consideration of the facts. Marty has been clearly victimized by the university and they should not be allowed to get away with it. And don't be sorry, you probably are just not that intelligent because that could be the only reason why you feel the way you do.

    1. Rather a sweeping statement considering the two of you have never met. Moreover, your assumptions rest entirely on the fact that this blog (which, I might remind you, is a personal platform, not a peer-reviewed bastion of truth and justice as you seem to think it is) portrays the facts in the light of complete objectivity.

      While it may sound harsh to say so, I would rather let the justice speak for itself. I appreciate that Marty is putting himself out there by documenting the events as they happen (that, certainly, takes chutzpah), but one would to well to remember that these are, at the end of the day, personal blog entries. The safest assumption is that they will be self-serving. I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that they are fair in balance, but it is not impossible that they are written, consciously or not, with the goal of presenting Marty's side of the case in the most positive light.

      So, all "Anonymous" - please try to view this case in balance.

    2. Peer reviewed my ass, if you only read the affidavits you can form a fairly clear picture that Marty was screwed Mr.Prof.

    3. The above Miss Anonymous says she would like the justice system to have the last word. At this point, so would I. But the University has inundated the courts with a flood of motions designed to prevent me from having my case heard. Their main argument so far is that no matter what I did, the Courts have no jurisdiction in interfereing with the university's internal affairs. They make no pretense of justifying what was done to me.

    4. I'm not a professor, instructor, or education student. I feel bad for Marty that his most vocal supporters here are people who leap to very hasty conclusions as you, apparently, do, my friend. That isn't doing him any favors at all; in fact, it just paints him as something of a zealot. Is that really how you want to support him?

      All I want for him is what he seems to want for himself - some sort of conclusive action that is fair and just. Whether that means a ruling in his favor or not has yet to be determined.

  5. I am not being narrow minded. I sat in on classes with him every day. He was rude, he was confrontational, he threw fits when people disagreed with him, he tried intimidating other students. I personally dont care about this case. Much like everyone in the faculty of education, you cant help but think "oh so and so will make a great teacher" or the opposite while watching them present or their every day contributions to class discussions. Marty was not someone who I would want around my children. I had seen people challenge him in class, or present things in a manner he didnt agree with and he would hijack the class and make it about himself and his way of doing things. While he may be a very smart man, there is more than expert knowledge (think professor Bells class) than to making a good teacher. He lacked the social skills, compassion and patience that go along with the job. He simply didnt have it. 99% of his classmates would say the exact same thing. This has been the topic of many discussions upon gatherings of classmates and I have not heard one defender of his ability to teach. I am not talking his treatment in this case. In the end he would have never been given a job.

    1. In the documentation submitted by the Associate Dean to the Disciplinary Committee, there is not a single incident actually described which corresponds to any your accusations...except for one which has susequently been repudiated by the person who claimed to witness it in the first place. I'm a little surprised that she hasn't written the Dean yet to retract those allegations which were so damaging to me at the time. But that's a topic for another day. If my behavior was so outrageous, you should have no difficulty in describing at least one incident which supports your claims.

  6. "I personally dont care about this case"

    "This has been the topic of many discussions upon gatherings of classmates"

    And you are writing and defending your writing-come on?

  7. I dont care about the technicalities and loopholes he is trying to find within the justice system. I am saying no matter what happens if we was done wrong by the university which may very well be the case, the dude would have made a horrendous teacher.

  8. It's interesting that someone as obviously consumed with hatred and vitriol as Miss Anonymous would argue,as she does above, that I am unfit to be a teacher despite because of my lack of compassion. And that even though she admits "it may very well be the case" that I was done wrong by the university (how can I have been done wrong when she charges that I displayed obnoxious and disruptive behavior every single day we were in class together?) she still thinks I deserved to be kicked out because I would have made a horrendous teacher.

    It's true that I would have been a very different teacher than Miss Anonymous. And it's true that there are people who think I am a very bad teacher. To some extent this is because I have a different idea of the purpose of me, it is not about instilling obedience, respect for authority and learning to follow directions. For people who want to instill those values in their children, I would indeed make a horrendous teacher. But you don't need to take my word for it, or the word of Miss Anonymous. I have posted video clips of my old Math With Marty shows on youtube, and you can link to them via this blogpost which I put up last April, entitled "What Kind of Nut is Marty Green":

  9. There is no such thing as a justice system. It is a legal system. It dispenses the law; it does not dispense justice. Just a minor detail to avoid disapointment.