Friday, December 13, 2013

The Lies They Needed to Tell...

On Wednesday we completed the fourth day of testimony in the case of R. v. Green. The trial had originally been scheduled for a single day, Sept. 3rd of this year. I was charged with Trespassing, Mischief and Forcible Entry relating to events that took place on Feb. 7th, for which I was arrested and spent nine days in jail before being released on bail.  Originally it was supposed to be a rather short trial. We're now four days into it and it's been adjourned until next June.

I don't expect to go back to court. The case has been a disaster for the University from day one, and I'm betting they'll prevail on the Crown to drop the charges long before then. That would be tantamount to an admission that they never really had a case against me. They certainly don't want to do that...but they'd much rather back out quietly, if they can get away with it, than have a judge write out a decision which, based on the evidence that's come out so far, will most likely tear their narrative to shreds.

The Crown had originally reserved one day for the trial. That was before I informed them that I would be arguing that the University of Winnipeg cannot charge me with trespassing merely on a whim, but that they have to state a credible reason why I should not be allowed to be on campus.

This should not have been a terribly difficult problem for the Crown, or for the University. On the evening of January 11th, I had gone to the home of one of my former professors and essentially terrorized him and his wife by trying to force my way into their home. At least that's what they said I did. I think that's a pretty good reason for the University to bar me from the campus.

But I wanted to argue that there was no home invasion...that it was just a story made up by Professor Bush to get me in trouble. So I served subpoenas on Bush and his wife to come testify, so I could cross-examine them on the home invasion story. I also called several other University employees who had been involved phone and email communications on the evening of the 11th that led to the University issuing its no-trespassing order the next day.

Here's where it gets interesting. Earlier this year, I had already launched a lawsuit against Professor Bush and his wife for accusing me of the home invasion. In response to that, Professor Bush had filed an affidavit with the court testifying to the events of that evening. Professor Metz had also filed an affidavit as to what Professor Bush had told him, just moments after the incident took place. I think it's fair to say that these affidavits were carefully crafted so as to shield Professor Bush and his wife from the accusations I had made in my Statement of Claim. How do you defend yourself against charges of defamation? There are basically two ways: they could have said, "nobody said nuthin about no home invasion"...or they could have said, "yes, we did accuse him of that because it's true." The professors chose Option A: in other words, the gist of those affidavits was that "nobody said nothin' about no home invasion". Yes, I had "attended" at the Bush residence. Yes, I had attempted to hand papers to Mrs. Bush. Yes, she had shut the door on me. Yes, I had prevented the door from closing. But nothing about me trying to force my way into the house.

But if that was the case, then why the no-trespassing order? The University had a real problem with that. Under cross-examination, they did everything they could to try and show that there were other reasons, outside of the home invasion, that justified the trespassing order. Clearly they were uncomfortable with relying on it. But when pressed, it was obvious that the real reason for the trespassing order was that Professor Bush said I tried to force my way into his home. They just couldn't deny it when they were confronted with email evidence of the communications saying exactly communications which I was only able to obtain because the University had been foolish enough to press criminal charges against me!

And that's where I had them by the nuts. See, to defend themselves against the civil action, they were claiming that they never accused me of a home invasion. But to beat me on the criminal charges, they had to claim there was a home invasion. Separately, they didn't have a problem telling either of these stories. But taken together, those two different narratives were, to say the least, problematic.

It seems that the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the civil case were different than the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the criminal case.


  1. So what lies did they need to tell to have you thrown out of your practicum? If they were willing to lie about a home invasion to suit their purposes when defending their actions, then ANY reasonable person would believe that they must have additionally done so in relation to your practicum. They really did not like you but what has been done to you is absolutely terrible Marty.

    1. It's not so much a question of the lies they told as the lies I can prove they told.

  2. "... must have additionally done so ..." may not hold up. A reasonable person could assume they university might perform an action based on previous performance, but use of the word 'must' implies implies unconditional behaviour. Would it not make more sense to use the word 'may', or 'may have' in that context?