The Chool Bus (ch39)

CHAPTER 39: The Forks return home for the holidays, and Professor T copes with a disappointing verdict in his troubles with Abigail Weiser.

Upon arrival at home base for the holidays, the Forks each made their way to their respective domiciles with friends and family anxious to hear of their exploits on the road. As Professor T was unpacking in his bedroom, the doorbell rang. When he answered it, a man served him legal papers informing him he was being sued for damages by Abigail Weiser, a long-time close work associate who had once carried a torch for him (Professor T) but secretly harbored simmering resentment for the rebuff after it became abundantly clear he was fully committed to separating work from romance. This sentiment, and maybe a touch of sociopathic greed, allowed her to be taken in by the idea that Title IX could be leveraged for a fat payday.

Enter former classmate and ethically dubious attorney, Brian Bok, Esquire. Ms Weiser booked a meeting with Mr. Bok and his partner Francis Scheizer for a consultation vis-à-vis her wish to acquire her “pound of flesh” from Professor T. And they (Scheizer & Bok) happily took up the case. She confided her complaint, and together, they cooked up a scenario where Professor T’s traveling companions would be forced to testify against him on a charge of groping the day they were to depart for Montana.

REMINDER: The scene has Abigail tripping and falling into Professor T’s arms at the very instant of the gang’s arrival on their way to the university’s cafeteria for lunch the day of the Forks’ departure. But this was no accident. Her timing was such that the witnesses couldn’t actually tell if Professor T was acting maliciously or altruistically. Too many question marks, and too awkward a scene for anyone to press for clarification. Of course, he wasn’t trying to grope her, and he had no impulse for manipulating her, a most competent administrative manager, into putting her ambitions on hold for his benefit. Be that as it may, Ms. Weiser, with the ethically dubious Scheizer & Bok, was suing for damages to the tune of $350,000…compensation for five years of career stagnation directly attributable to Professor T’s gaslighting and sexual harassment.

Professor T automatically perceives this as a conspiracy to extort him and pledges to fight the charges in court. With Buck Wellstone by his side, Professor T endeavors to confront the shady attorneys in their office, whereupon Scheizer and Bok encourage Professor T to “settle out of court.” It is a crudely transparent shakedown and Professor T refuses to relent. At this point, the extortionists begin baiting Professor T to call them out as “pettifoggers,” “swindlers,” or “thieves.” In the heat of this conflagration, Bok invites Mork T to assault one of them. Bok, an Ichabod Crane-esque personage, always offers these titillating provocations standing behind Scheizer, because his frail anatomy would not hold up to a physical assault. But Scheizer, with his gin blossom and pasty layers of bakery-dough-colored extra padding, could withstand a blow or two.

At this point, Buck Wellstone was shaking his head in bewilderment. He couldn’t believe the cartoonish encounter he was witnessing. Gently, he was able to lead Professor T away from the confrontation before something regrettable could happen.

***

On the day of the hearing, in the courtroom, Scheizer and Bok brought the university’s HR representative to testify regarding the Zoom hearing, where Professor T lost his composure and blew his stack, sending the Zoom meeting’s audio into a blast of speaker-shredding distortion. The discipline committee passed a verdict unhelpful to Professor T’s case, resulting in a bureaucratic process known as “chronic low performance”…a procedure that comes with suggested measures for correcting undesirable conduct in order to avoid dismissal…something they can do to tenured faculty now.

This, however, failed to check Professor T’s confidence that “truth and justice” would prevail, at which point Professor T’s legal counselor commented that that sort of outcome would be “nice for a change.”

As Francis Scheizer began his opening remarks, Professor T noticed the presiding judge was an eminent legal practitioner who happened to be betrothed to a woman Professor T had mistakenly barged in on in the ladies’ dressing room of the university’s sports complex. It was an accident. After all, who hasn’t absent-mindedly walked into the wrong restroom, only to about-face as soon as the mistake was apparent? But Professor T didn’t notice the absence of urinals in the space until the lady in question emerged from a stall with only a towel covering her private bits. He excused himself right away, but this particular lady was one of those bathroom-obsessed culture-war activists who made a point to shame Professor T with this incident…a prominent talking point featured in her many speeches against anyone, but especially trans women, invading female restrooms.

Scheizer continued this courtroom assault employing remarks dripping with bombastic sentimentality and faux emotional gravity, preying on the judge’s sympathies using this abominable bathroom invasion to great effect with a host of culture-war activists in the gallery nodding in solidarity. They called Professor T a “predator,” a “misogynist,” and a “sociopathic manipulator of coworkers,” preying on trusting souls with his bogus career advice and unfulfilled promises of personal advancement.

“Heartless… calculated… utter villainy!” opined Scheizer, with extreme emotional gravitas.

Professor T’s associates were called to the stand, and since he was so confident truth and justice would prevail, neither he nor his counselor offered any advice or coaching on how to respond to Scheizer’s belligerent yes-or-no questions. And so, Scheizer took every opportunity to harass Billie, Jack, and Buck to their red-faced embarrassment. And when the prosecution finished spewing all the bile they had in reserve for this workplace predator and his hapless character witnesses, Professor T’s attorney had no cross-examination questions for the witnesses.

It is easy to see where this leads. The verdict was delivered for the plaintiff, with seventy thousand dollars awarded for damages. The judge calculated one year of back wages, sufficient for Abigail to recover her lost time. Seventy thousand was considered a fair wage for a year in the position she felt she was deprived of by Professor T’s manipulative villainy.

Upon the judge’s announced verdict, Professor T displayed the countenance of someone astonished that an outcome this absurd could be rendered…it had to be a mistake. But the judge was not sympathetic to Mork’s cause, as he was not convinced something disreputable hadn’t happened between the defendant and his administrative assistant in the professor’s office before the arrival of witnesses.

As the litigants and onlookers filed back out into the street, Professor T again confronted Scheizer and Bok to let them know they would receive not a single quarter, dime, nickel, or dollar from him…even if he had to file for personal bankruptcy.

And so…Professor T refuses to pay damages, and the law office of Scheizer and Bok in turn refuses to waive Abigail’s attorney fees as promised, so now she too is on the hook for their exorbitant fees…which, of course, she can’t pay. Now, she risks her own professional and personal ruination as public sentiment begins to favor Professor T’s point of view. And why set this tragic wheel of futility into motion? Vindictiveness? Maybe, but responsible law practitioners aren’t supposed to be running extortion rackets either, and with the final outcome showing Professor T AND Abigail Weiser victimized by Scheizer and Bok, it may be safe to conclude truth and justice failed to carry the day.

NEXT WEEK:
The Forks take a holiday pause while Professor T scrambles to recover from his unfortunate holiday justice gift.

GO BACK => Preface and Chapter Links

Round and Round in Loops

The Donald is ordered to release documents in Trump University lawsuit… 

…and he’s not happy about it. The U.S. presidential candidate called presiding federal judge (Gonzalo Curiel) “a hater” and spent 10 minutes airing grievances about the 2010 case at a recent 58-minute appearance in San Diego. Trump accused the judge of bias and called for him to be removed from the case.

The court order did not go over well with the booing trump-friendly San Diego crowd as rulings against trump were cited.  Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that Curiel was appointed to the bench by Trump’s “birther” conspiracy target, President Barack Obama. The announcement of the order came on the same day as the trump speech, but some of the material had already been presented to the public.

“…some of the documents have already surfaced online. Online political website politico in March posted a 2010 Trump University playbook, which instructed employees to rank students by liquid assets to help determine what kind of course packages they could afford to buy.”

trump_u_lawsuit

WHAT’S THE NEWS?
A federal judge in San Diego has ordered the unsealing of hundreds of pages of internal documents produced by Donald Trump’s Trump University in connection with a fraud lawsuit against the company, the latest twist in the long-running lawsuit against the school.

For more, see source: Judge Orders Release of Documents in Trump University Lawsuit – WSJ

Stealin’ Loops

It’s just lazy.

Look, Kirby Ferguson is right, everything IS a remix, there’s nothing new under the sun. However, when producing music, if you need a vocal, sing it! If you can’t sing, find someone in the neighborhood that can. Seriously, in an age where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting an “American Idol,” or “The Voice” aspirant it’s lazy to pinch, especially vocals, from someone else’s tracks. That said, if you must have “that vocal,” the least you can do is send props the original singer’s way or maybe, here’s an idea, request permission for the pinch. It’s one thing to play or sing in the manner of someone else’s work, that’s homage, that’s a compliment. But to scrape it from the original artist’s track is, well, it’s just lazy.

Shame on you Bieb. Do better next time. After all, you’re are setting an example for millions of Beliebers, please, do the right thing.

WHAT’S THE NEWS (follow the link to compare tracks)?
Artist White Hinterland claims that Bieber stole parts from her song “Ring the Bell.”
 Justin Bieber Is Being Sued For Allegedly Stealing Vocal Loops In “Sorry”