I think it's safe to say that no individual did more than Don Metz to get me kicked out of university. I've already told you how I once caught him out in three separate "half-truths" in one short email. And how he sent an email to Neil Besner accusing me of trying to force my way into Professor Bush's home, and then when I sued Bush for defamation, Metz swore an affidavit where he denies Bush said anything of the sort. The thing about Metz is that it's hard to pinpoint his lies...either he lied in the email, or he lied in the affidavit. I think he lied in both, even if I can't exactly prove that...yet. But for sure he lied in one or the other.
So it was pretty suprising to me when I got him on the witness stand and asked him if he knew why I'd been barred from the campus, that he said he didn't know. I mean, he was the central nexus of the whole "home invasion" story...he was the first guy Bush phoned, and the first guy to inform the University. And he was part of the subsequent meetings and consultations. So how did he not know the reason I was banned from the campus?
It turned out he was playing the same game Besner had already played! There were actually two trespassing orders one year apart...and just as Besner had done three weeks earlier, Metz was know acting as though I had asked him about the original order (January 2012) and not the one I was on trial for, that was all over their subpoenas (January 2013). But okay, let's ask that question then (since he brought it up): Did he know why I was barred from the campus in 2012?
"I presume it had to do with the four or five complaints that were addressed on a non-academic matter".
I see. Were any of those complaints from you?
Some of them?
"Not some of them. One of them was."
And Metz believed that complaint was what led to my expulsion?
"I can't make that judgment".
Was the the only complaint you were invovled in, I asked? And listen to what he says:
"That is the only complaint I filed in a written formal matter." (Note the escape clause!)
And when pressed, he tried to divert attention by admitting that there were other complaints related to my requests for the return of property....almost a year after I was expelled! No, Professor Metz, we're not talking about that...we're talking about the original expulsion. Were there any other letter that you wrote?
"Before that? I mean, that was Nov. 10th, correct? Then no."
That wasn't the question, and he knew it. And again with the tell-tale escape clause...specifically crafted to enable him to feign ignorance of exactly what everyone knew I was asking him: "Before that or subsequent, but prior to the barring notice," I insisted. And here comes the whopper:
"Subsequent and prior to the barring notice, nothing that I can recollect."
In the 12th century, Kind Henry III was having trouble with the Church. So when the Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry replaced him with his faithful friend, Thomas Beckett. But to his surprise, Beckett took his new job seriously, and proved just as troublesome, if not more so, than the previous archbishop. One thing led to another, and Henry had Beckett thrown in the Tower of London. But even from there, Beckett continued to be a thorn in his side, issuing pronouncements that Henry could not overrule. In frustration, the Kind is said to have cried out, in the presence of several noblemen, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?".
The noblemen took this as a tacit authorization for a "covert op", and before long Beckett had been assassinated. The phrase "plausible deniability" had not yet been coined, but that's the general idea. Henry later claimed he had been misunderstood, and even did public penance, but the bottom line is that Beckett was gone for good.
It turns out Metz, like Henry III, knew a lot more about the circumstances of my expulsion than he was admitting on the stand. But despite his best efforts, the evidence would soon come to light, in the form of an email taken straight from the playbook of Henry III...