Thursday, April 10, 2014

"You made them look like idiots..."

One of my more articulate detractors had reappeared after an absence of nearly a year. My old nemesis Ms. Redboots weighed in the other day to make more excuses on behalf of the University. You'll remember I had accused numerous faculty members of deliberately lying to get me kicked out of school and even thrown in jail. I challenged the university to sue me for defamation: otherwise, they were basically admitting that my charges were true.

Ms. Redboots thought I was behaving improperly. Since I had already sued the university for kicking me out of school, the proper course of action would be for me to shut up and let the dispute work its way through the courts. That way the truth would come out.

Of course, that's not the way it works. The University is doing everything it can to stop my various cases from being heard before the courts. Their main argument has been that as a University, they are outside the supervision of the court system: no matter what they did to me, true or false, malicious or otherwise, it is not the business of the Courts to meddle in what are essentially "academic matters."

Their latest gambit was to try and have my incriminating evidence thrown out on the basis of inadmissibility. You'll remember that after they had criminal charges laid against me for events stemming from the alleged "home invasion", I sued them for defamation on the basis of those allegations. This created a problem for the University, which they didn't recognize until it was too late.

The problem was simply this: the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the criminal case were different from the lies they needed to tell to beat me on the civil case. The criminal case was heard first, and so I subpoenaed the professors who had slandered me. I was almost sure this would prompt them to drop the charges, so I could hardly believe my eyes when they showed up in court to be examined on the witness stand.

The examination was a disaster for them! Toward the end of the day, a few Law Courts staffers had drifted in to catch the tail end of my examinations of the Bushes. "You made them look like idiots," one of them remarked when I ran into him recently in the courthouse. More importantly, I made them look like liars. I promptly gathered up the evidence that I had collected in the criminal trial and filed it in the civil procedings.

The university cried foul! "You can't take evidence from a criminal case and use it in a civil case", they complained to the judge. "Oh yes you can", he told them (in so many words). The evidence was accepted into the record.

Ms. Redboots complains that she's tired of getting nothing by my personal spin on these things, calling it a "massive exercise in self-indulgence". "Why don't you just post the court documents and the dates of upcoming hearings, and let your audience show up (or not) and see for themselves what's going on", she asks.

I am going to take her up on this, and will gladly post the date of my next court hearing. I look forward to seeing her in person, and I expect her to wear her red boots so I will recognize her. (And I promise not to sue her for anything she might have said about me.)  In the meantime, it turns out the transcripts of my criminal case examinations are already available online. (Yes, the ones where I "made them look like idiots".) So she can judge for herself who's lying and who's telling the truth. Here they are, from September 3rd and again from September 25th of last fall.

Read 'em and weep, Lloyd Axworthy. Read 'em and weep.


  1. Cool. I don't think I've ever been anyone's nemesis before. Got a little George W. Bush thing going on, have we? If you're not for us, you're agin us?
    Everyone who isn't prepared to swallow your story whole is a "detractor"?

    Transcripts: Yawn. So where are the transcripts for December? Where's the judge's decision? Bet he didn't call anyone a liar.

    Maybe I'll show up for a hearing sometime & maybe not. I do have a life-- and frankly, I haven't been interested enough in this for the past year to do more than a quick skim every few months.

  2. I think we should show up and Marty's next gig and help him out. You know, show him how real performers do it, what with blackboards and all.

    Eh, Marty, ol' buddy, ol' pal, whadduyer say? When is your next gig? You know you want and need help, just like all those profs you messed with.

    Same game buddy, just tasting your own medicine, that's all. I'm sure you are looking forward to it.

    1. Personally involved butthurt is the best kind of butthurt! Oh, how ugly things look when the light shines in places that are used to being in the dark, facing scrutiny for the first time and not being able to stop it by just saing "shut off the lights, you're not supposed to be here!"

  3. Well, Marty, I've read the transcripts as opposed to just skimming them-- hours of my life I won't get back. Let's just say that I don't see them the way you do.
    For instance, I don't see any evidence of a grand conspiricy against you that reaches all the way into the upper echelons of the administration at UofW.

    Nor do I see that you've 'caught' anyone outright lying. There are inconsistencies, sure-- probably attributable to the fact that no one's memory is perfect. Some of the testimony seems a bit far-fetched. But that doesn't mean that the witnesses concocted everything from thin air, or colluded with one another, or did anything more nefarious (or stupid) than try to evade service of court documents.

    In the transcripts, you come across as disorganized, volatile, digressive, and prone to argue with your own witnesses. On the other hand, you were extremely deferential to the judge. I'd venture to suggest that if you'd behaved with the same level of respect towards your profs, you'd have graduated with your B.Ed by now and this entire blog wouldn't exist.

    It's still looking to me as if you made a nuisance of yourself in the classroom, that Professors Metz and Bush complained about you (as they were entitled to do), that Professor Cantor passed along a complaint about you made by another one of her students without adding her editorial comments (as she is probably required to do); and the administrative machinery set up to deal with those kinds of complaints simply clunked into gear and started to grind-- and it was your responses to that that sent everyone over the edge.
    I think you've stepped into what a far better writer than I called "that lethal gap" that separates your own view of yourself and your actions from the way others perceive them.
    And-- incidentally-- tedious as it is to read court transcripts, I'd still sooner read those than read your commentary on the process.