Imagine playing in a tennis match. You have played three of five sets and won two of them. It is your opponent’s turn to serve. They serve a fault. The judge motions for them to serve again. They serve another fault and the judge says, “Love-all. Ok, please keep on serving until you serve it correctly.”
Imagine playing in a tennis match. You have played three of five sets and won two of them. It is your opponent’s turn to serve. They serve a fault. The judge motions for them to serve again. They serve another fault and the judge says, “Love-all. Ok, please keep on serving until you serve it correctly.”
You say to the judge, “excuse me but you are not calling the correct score, these are not the rules of the United States Tennis Association.” The judge responds, “Look, you are already two sets ahead so please be quiet and let them serve until they stop faulting, and then we will continue playing.”
You speak out again, “Excuse me but this is wrong, what gives you the authority to rewrite the rules of the game?” The judge says, “Well, I am the judge and I can make up rules as I go along. And the next time you raise your voice I will have to levy a fine against you for questioning my decision, so please be quiet, this is my tennis court and I can decide how the game will be played.” Eventually, you lose and the judge declares your opponent the winner of the match.
Now, you know this does not happen in real life; at least not when playing in national tennis tournaments. But it has essentially happened to me in the civil law court of Federal Judge Helen Ginger Berrigan (Eastern District Louisiana).
The “set” I am playing on this Court involves not a trophy, but redress of violations of my Constitutional due process, speech, academic freedom and tenure property rights (and the protection of those rights of other academics).
In an order of December 5, 2011, Judge Berrigan indicated I would be able to file a motion for reconsideration of that order after she ruled on a subsequent motion. In the subsequent ruling of April 23, 2012 she wrote “no motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff”, referencing my unwitting failure to file a motion to reconsider her December 2011 order. The following day Judge Berrigan rendered final judgment against me.
I felt like a front row witness to some merchant's "bait and switch" scam.
When the rules of the court system are so subverted that a party’s ability to participate in the process is obstructed, it is called fraud. And if it is perpetrated by the presiding judge, then guess who gets to decide if the judge has committed fraud—at least initially, the judge herself. Can any human being be objective when determining if they themselves are guilty of fraud? Apparently, Judge Berrigan thought she could be.
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the judge to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Unfortunately for me and perhaps America’s judicial system, Judge Berrigan did not disqualify herself when the question of her own fraud was detailed through a motion to vacate. She denied the motion.
The good news is I can come to the aid of our U.S. Constitution through good government advocacy because I am part of We the People of the United States!
Steve