|
|
|
|
|
|
Petition to U.S. Supreme Court for Writ of Mandamus (View as PDF) Page numbers refer to original document pages and here are hyperlinked to the appropriate reference.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1999 _________________________________________ Case No. 99-372 _________________________________________ In re CARL BERNOFSKY, Petitioner _________________________________________ DR. CARL BERNOFSKY, Plaintiff - Petitioner, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND (TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE), Defendant - Respondent. _________________________________________ Petition for Writ of Mandamus _________________________________________
CARL BERNOFSKY
6478 General Diaz Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
(504) 486-4639
Petitioner, Pro Se
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Should United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Honorable Ginger Berrigan, who is an adjunct faculty member of Tulane University and who served on the Board of Directors of a Tulane University Research Center, be disqualified from presiding in cases in which Tulane University is a defendant?
Dr. Carl Bernofsky
- Plaintiff - Petitioner The Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Judge
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
- Respondent Victor R. Farrugia, Esq.
- Counsel for Plaintiff Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund
(Tulane University School of Medicine)
- Defendant - Respondent Julie D. Livaudais, Esq.
- Counsel for Defendant G. Phillip Shuler, III, Esq.
- Counsel for Defendant Richard B. Ramirez, Esq.
- Counsel for Defendant John R. Beal, Esq.
- Counsel for Defendant
TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (i) PARTIES (ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS (iii) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (iv) PRIOR OPINIONS (vi) JURISDICTION (vi) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (vii) STATUTES INVOLVED (vii) STATEMENT OF THE CASE (1) (1) (4) (11) CONCLUSION (26) CERTIFICATE (28) APPENDIX (A-i)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Case Page Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 1993) 23, 24 In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3rd Cir. 1995) 23 Baran v. Port of Beaumont Navigation District of Jefferson County,
57 F.3d, 444 (5th Cir. 1995)21 Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), 41 S.Ct. 230, 65 L.Ed. 481 14 Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School, 962 F.Supp. 895
(E.D.La. 1997), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 119 S.Ct. 48, 142 L.Ed. 2d 37 (1998)8, 11, 23, 26 Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia,
324 F.Supp. 439 (E.D. Va. 1971)20 Camero v. United States, 375 F.2d 777 (U.S. Claims 1967) 18 Collins v. Dixie Transport, Inc., 543 So.2d 160 (1989) 13 Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625 (1896), 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097 12 D.B. v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Educ., 985 F.Supp 457 (D.N.J. 1997) 25 Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044
(5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976), 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 18821 Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir. 1992) 23 In re International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, (2nd Cir. 1980) 13 Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458, (6th Cir. 1956), rehearing denied
235 F.2d 129, cert. denied 352 U.S. 892, 77 S.Ct. 131, 1 L.Ed.2d 8621 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988),
108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 85522, 23, 26 Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994), 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 15, 22, 23, 24, 25 Michigan Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Shalala, 859 F.Supp. 1113 (W.D. Mich. 1994) 24 Public Utilities Comm'n of D.C. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952), 72 S.Ct. 813,
96 L.Ed. 106826 Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, (6th Cir. 1980), on remand 538 F.supp 424 25 Rosen v. Sugarman, 357 F.2d 794 (2nd Cir. 1966) 13 In re Schenck, 870 P.2d 185 (Or. 1994) 16, 17 Union Carbide Corp. v. U.S. Cutting Service, Inc., 782 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1986) 13 United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568 (3rd Cir. 1995) 23 United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3rd Cir. 1994) 23 United States v. Townsend, 151 F.Supp. 378 (D.C.D.C. 1957) 12 U.S. v. Avilez-Reyes 160 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1998) 20 Valley et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047 (5th Cir. 1997) 19, 20, 21 Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975), 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT.) Statute Page Article V, U.S. Constitution 7, 12, 16 Article XIV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution 7, 12, 16 Title 28, U.S.C., Section 144 15, 20, 21 Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(a) 4, 8, 11, 14, 15,
22, 23, 25, 26Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(b)(5)(i) 4, 6, 8, 11, 14 Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1651 11 Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2106 11
PRIOR OPINIONS The opinion whose review is sought is unpublished and is reproduced in the Appendix at A-9. The District Court opinion is reproduced in the Appendix at A-1. JURISDICTION Petitioner seeks this Court's review of the judgment entered on July 6, 1999 by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by a Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). This petition is timely filed because it was mailed within ninety days of July 6, 1999, the date a petition for mandamus was denied in the court below. Rules 13.1 and 29.2. Jurisdictional basis for the Fifth Circuit is 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and Fed. R. App. P. 21(a), and for the District Court is 28 U.S.C. § 1331. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article V, United States Constitution in pertinent part provides:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Article XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution in pertinent part provides:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
STATUTES INVOLVED Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(a) states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(b)(5)(i) in pertinent part states:
He shall also disqualify himself . . . where he . . . is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party.
Petitioner, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, was plaintiff in a series of four lawsuits against defendant, Tulane University, in which the Honorable Ginger Berrigan presided. In the first lawsuit, Civil Action No. 95-358, filed Jan. 31, 1995 in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, petitioner alleged discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and joined various state law claims. The complaint asserted that petitioner was a professor at Tulane University Medical School where he had been a faculty member for 20 years and that a new Departmental Chairman who arrived in Nov., 1991 had harassed him, interfered with his staff, hindered his performance, caused him to lose grant funding, and threatened termination. The complaint further alleged that these actions were based on the fact that petitioner was Jewish and that the other two senior Jewish faculty members in the Department were also being discriminated against on the basis of their Jewish parentage by the same Chairman, who was of Lebanese descent. A First Amended Complaint, adding an age discrimination claim under state law, was filed Feb. 27, 1995. A trial date was initially set for Jan. 22, 1996, but was continued to July 8, 1996 because of petitioner's diagnosis and treatment for cancer. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 21, 1995, adding an ADEA claim and a claim for conversion of laboratory equipment and materials. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 14, 1996, and a Reply Memorandum on May 31, 1996. Petitioner filed an Opposition Memorandum to Summary Judgment on May 21, 1996, and a Reply Memorandum Opposing Summary Judgment on June 5, 1996. In response to issues raised by the District Court, petitioner filed a Supplemental Memorandum Opposing Summary Judgment on July 1, 1996, a Memorandum in Response to Court's Request, and a letter setting forth each of petitioner's claims, also in response to the District Court's directive. Defendant delivered a Pre-trial Memorandum on July 1, 1996, and petitioner responded on July 2, 1996. A status conference was held July 5, 1996, at which time the District Court informed petitioner's counsel that defendant's motion for summary judgment would be denied and that the trial would commence as scheduled on July 8, 1996. However, as a result of defendant's complaints concerning the Exhibit Books assembled by petitioner, the parties agreed to continue the trial to the next available date which, after a series of scheduling conflicts, was set for Sept. 8, 1997. Although this trial date was reconfirmed as late as Apr. 2, 1997, the District Court nevertheless reversed itself, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Apr. 15, 1997 and rendering final judgment Apr. 21, 1997. Petitioner timely appealed, but the Fifth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the District Court for "substantially" the same reasons Jan. 8, 1998. The Appellate Court further denied petitioner's motion for a rehearing Feb. 5, 1998. Subsequently, as Case No. 97-1844, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari Oct. 5, 1998. Petitioner filed two other lawsuits, this time in State Court (Nos. 97-20805 and 98-6317). These were removed by defendant to Federal Court, where they were docketed as Civil Actions 98-2102 and 98-1577, respectively, and assigned to Judge Berrigan. A fourth lawsuit, Civil Action 98-1792, was filed directly in U.S. District Court on June 18, 1998. Civil Actions 98-1792 and 98-2102 were later consolidated under the former docket number and is currently pending, captioned as Dr. Carl Bernofsky v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund. In this lawsuit, petitioner alleges retaliatory conduct by defendant for making false and malicious statements to prospective employers in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(b), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). Because petitioner was unapprised of Judge Berrigan's association with defendant, he had been precluded from addressing the conflict of interest issue until the matter now pending before her. Petitioner filed a motion to recuse Judge Berrigan Oct. 15, 1998, and defendant filed a memorandum in opposition Nov. 9, 1998. Petitioner's motion to recuse was denied Nov. 23, 1998 (Appendix, at A-1), and the Judge's order was appealed. The Fifth Circuit denied the appeal Feb. 2, 1999 (Appendix, at A-2), and petitioner's legal counsel withdrew from the case Feb. 8, 1999. Appendix, at A-4. Petitioner, in proper person, then filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Judge Berrigan based on her material and continuing association with defendant throughout the above proceedings and her inexcusable failure to disclose this association. The Complaint, No. 99-05-372-0118, was dismissed Feb. 23, 1999 by order of Fifth Circuit Chief Judge and, upon appeal, the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal Apr. 19, 1999. Petitioner, in proper person, next filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus that sought to recuse Judge Berrigan from the litigation presently before her. Attached to the petition were 25 exhibits with documentation of all claims. A status conference was called June 17, 1999 at which time Judge Berrigan informed all counsel of her decision to recuse herself. Subsequently, however, Judge Berrigan reversed herself and submitted a response that opposed recusal June 21, 1999. Appendix, at A-6. Defendant responded June 28, 1999, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition July 6, 1999. Appendix, at A-9. The instant petition for mandamus followed. Introduction
In the employment discrimination matter that was the subject of petitioner's first lawsuit, the District Court Judge who rendered summary judgment in favor of defendant, Tulane University, was an adjunct faculty member of Tulane University's Law School during the time that case was before the Court. The Judge continues her adjunct professorship to the present day. The Judge was also on the Board of Directors of one of Tulane University's research centers during the period that she rendered summary judgment in favor of defendant. Under the Model Codes of Judicial Conduct, the Judge not only had an obligation to disclose her association with the defendant university, she had a duty to disqualify herself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(5)(i). From Jan. 31, 1995 onward, the District Court Judge continually violated statutes regulating disqualification in all four of petitioner's lawsuits where she presided and failed to make any disclosure. Professorship
Federal District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan is Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Tulane University and taught the course, Trial Advocacy, during the 1995-96 academic year. Since then, Judge Berrigan has maintained a professional association with Tulane through her continued participation in the Law School's Judicial Externship Program and as a substitute instructor for the course, Federal Practice & Procedure: Trials, taught by 77-year-old Adjunct Professor, Federal District Court Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. Under ordinary circumstances, Judge Berrigan would be expected to carry on this course when Judge Schwartz retires from teaching. Judge Berrigan's affinity for Tulane University may be surmised from her willingness to devote the time and effort needed to prepare lecture materials, travel to the university campus, and teach classes - all without financial compensation. Nevertheless, Judge Berrigan has defended her qualification to sit by stating that her teaching activities in Tulane's Law School involve no [financial] compensation. Appendix, at A-1. Generally, adjunct professors are not paid by Tulane for their service in academic programs. However, with a lifetime salary provided, monetary compensation would appear to be secondary to the prestige a federal judge may derive from a university professorship. Furthermore, interacting in a university setting with university officials and prominent jurists is a professional benefit that allows a judge to keep abreast of academic politics and current legal developments, and to maintain social contacts. Finally, participating in a teaching program, or acting as a mentor, may satisfy a judge's sense of professional duty, the discharge of which is deemed compensation enough. Board Membership
In 1990, Judge Berrigan, then an attorney, was appointed to the Board of Directors of Tulane University's Amistad Research Center, a position she occupied until 1997. (1) Significantly, Judge Berrigan recently altered her curriculum vitae by deleting three years from the time she previously claimed to serve on the Board of Tulane's Amistad Research Center. Whereas her previous vitae showed membership through 1997, the altered vitae now shows board membership only through 1994.(2) This change creates a new record that indicates that Judge Berrigan did not serve as a director of a Tulane research center at any time from Jan. 31, 1995 onward, when she presided in petitioner's lawsuits against Tulane. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which is updated twice annually, cites Judge Berrigan's continuing Board membership in Tulane's Amistad Research Center for 1995, 1996, and 1997. The alteration of her record in 1998 implies that Judge Berrigan recognized that there was something improper about her association with Tulane during the 1995 - 1997 period. Specifically, as a "Director" of one of defendant's research centers, she was automatically disqualified pursuant to U.S.C. 28 § 455(b)(5)(i). Judge Berrigan's adjunct professorship with Tulane University was also omitted from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, although she continues to serve in this capacity. The Amistad Research Center occupies a complete wing of Tilton Memorial Hall on the campus of Tulane University. Tulane not only furnishes the Center with a rent-free physical site, it funded $200,000 in improvements and contributed $12,000 in relocation costs. Tulane also provides a budget of about $63,200 in 1986 dollars, which is adjusted annually for inflation and used for unrestricted operating expenses. Two members of Amistad Center's Board of Directors are appointed by Tulane. Tulane also publically represents the Amistad Center as a "Tulane" center. Amistad's holdings are listed as part of Tulane's library system, and Amistad's Executive Director, Comptroller, and other key administrative personnel are entered in the Tulane Faculty and Staff Directory. Judge Berrigan has defended her qualification to sit by inferring that the Amistad Research Center is an entity that is independent from Tulane. Appendix, at A-1. This statement ignores Tulane's investment in the Center, Tulane's annual budgeting for the Center, Tulane's appointments to the Center's Board of Directors, and Tulane's influence over the Center's key personnel. The facts demonstrate that the Amistad Center, as other Tulane centers, is materially dependent on Tulane for its existence. According to Tulane's 1995 Faculty Handbook and recent updates from Tulane's Web site on the Internet, the Amistad Research Center is one of more than two dozen such centers affiliated with the University. It is also among those Tulane entities that are registered as non-profit corporations. These include the Southern Institute for Education and Research, the Tulane Public Interest Law Foundation, the Louisiana Public Health Institute, and others. Like most other Tulane centers, institutes, foundations, and departments that derive funding from extramural sources, the Amistad Research Center is still materially dependent on Tulane. Some centers, such as the Tulane Regional Primate Research Center and the Center for Bioenvironmental Research, receive substantial government grants in addition to the support they obtain from Tulane. However, like the Amistad Research Center, they are still considered integral parts of the University. Abuse of Judicial Discretion
Petitioner's due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were, and continue to be, severely abridged in his civil suits against Tulane University. Judge Berrigans's failure to disclose her association with defendant deprived petitioner of the opportunity to bring this association to the attention of the Appellate and U.S. Supreme Courts. Had the District Court's strong appearance of impropriety been timely addressed, its impartiality might reasonably have been questioned and affected the outcome of the appellate process. Petitioner complained that newly-created, deceptive and untruthful statements were employed by Tulane during oral arguments before the Appellate Court. When these falsehoods were pointed out in a brief that requested a rehearing, the Appellate Court declined to rehear the case. Had the Appellate Court been aware of the District Court's association with defendant and its willful concealment of this association, it may have been more inclined to examine those strongly disputed material facts. The U.S. Supreme Court may also have been more receptive to the petition for certiorari had it been apprised that the Judge was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(5)(i) at the time she made her rulings and entered judgment in favor of Tulane. At every critical junction, Judge Berrigan's reasoning appeared to be guided along a path that led to defendant's goal of denying petitioner a trial on the merits of his case. In some instances, this process involved treating as "undisputed facts" facts that were sharply disputed by documentary evidence and petitioner's sworn testimony. An egregious example of the District Court's abuse of authority was its treatment of petitioner's grant funding in his first lawsuit against Tulane. Documentation had thoroughly substantiated that petitioner had received notice of a new $250,000 grant award from the Air Force 10 weeks before he was terminated. The grant was officially accepted by Tulane and not returned to the Air Force until eight months after petitioner was terminated. Nevertheless, defendant claimed that petitioner had no grant funds with which to support his research, leading Judge Berrigan to state, "...Bernofsky was not qualified because of his lack of extramural funding..." (Civil Action No. 95-358, Apr. 15, 1997, Order and Reasons, at 18) and, "...all undisputed facts support the simple explanation that Bernofsky was terminated for his inability to meet his salary needs..." Id. at 28. The Judge's ruling was interpreted as follows: Former research professor at medical school asserted race and age discrimination and state law claims in connection with denial of tenure and ultimate termination for failure to obtain grant funding. Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School, 962 F.Supp. 895 (E.D.La. 1997), at 895. (Bold emphasis added). During the past four-and-one-half years, the District Court repeatedly dismissed documentary evidence and sworn testimony that sharply contradicted defendant's claims while crediting the defendant's positions and labeling them as "undisputed." Petitioner, a scientist untrained in law, was astonished that the Court would abandon objective reality to favor defendant's disputed claims, even when they were contradicted by defendant's own documents. Petitioner can cite numerous instances of this bias and lack of objectivity, but a full accounting is beyond the scope of this petition. These "judgments notwithstanding the evidence" suggested the existence of influence from an extrajudicial source and led petitioner to search for and ultimately discover the association that linked the District Court to the defendant. Attempts at Intimidation
In her letter of June 21, 1999 to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in response to petitioner's petition for mandamus, Judge Ginger Berrigan sought to divert attention from the core issue of disqualification by focusing on petitioner's efforts to locate representation following the withdrawal of his former counsel. She implied that there was something untoward in petitioner's attempt to recruit legal counsel through advertising. Petitioner's print ads, which appeared in the ABA Journal, Louisiana Bar Journal, and three other highly-regarded legal publications, neither mentioned Judge Berrigan nor contained critical remarks. Contrary to the Judge's assertion, petitioner placed no advertising on the Internet. Appendix, at A-6. Petitioner's personal Web site, for which he alone is responsible, contains reprints of selected court documents, other factual information, and commentary on matters related to his lawsuits against Tulane. The Web site is intended for attorneys and anyone else seeking information about petitioner's lawsuits and is constitutionally protected speech. Petitioner's present counsel was retained solely to represent him in the matter now pending in District Court irrespective of presiding judge. Neither petitioner's counsel nor any other attorney assisted petitioner in his recent efforts to seek Judge Berrigan's recusal. Petitioner assumed full responsibility for pursuing recusal on a pro se basis after realizing that his retention of legal counsel was handicapped by attorneys' fears of retaliation for complaining about a judge in whose court they continue to practice. Similar fears contributed to the withdrawal of petitioner's former counsel following Judge Berrigan's initial refusal to disqualify herself. Appendix, at A-4. Fear of reprisal is justifiable. After expressing her wish that the recusal issue "be laid to rest," Judge Berrigan reminded petitioner's counsel that he "had litigated several employment discrimination cases in [her] section of Court." This comment appears to be an attempt to intimidate petitioner's counsel with an implied threat of possible retaliation. Appendix, at A-7. Moreover, Judge Berrigan has directed her responses on this matter exclusively to petitioner's counsel even though petitioner has been representing himself on the recusal issue. Relief Sought
Petitioner, Carl Bernofsky, plaintiff in Civil Action No. 98-1792 c/w 98-2102, captioned as Dr. Carl Bernofsky v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, respectfully moves this court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to grant a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to vacate her order of Nov. 23, 1998 denying petitioner's motion for recusal (Appendix, at A-1) and disqualify herself from presiding in the above-named action now pending before her. Recusal is justified on ground that the Judge is disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and that she willfully concealed and later misrepresented her long-term relationship with defendant with which she continues to be materially associated. Judge Berrigan's continued participation in the matter now before her creates the strong appearance of impropriety for which relief through disqualification is warranted. This writ should issue because the District Court indisputably abused its discretion, and petitioner has failed to obtain relief in the Fifth Circuit through the appellate process. Second, petitioner respectfully moves this court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and 28 U.S.C. § 2106, to direct the Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to vacate her judgment in the case designated as Civil Action No. 95-358 (Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School, 962 F.Supp. 895 (E.D.La. 1997), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 119 S.Ct. 48, 142 L.Ed. 2d 37 (1998)), and disqualify herself from further adjudication of that case. Vacatur is justified on grounds that the Judge was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(5)(i) at the time she ruled and entered judgment in favor of defendant; that she willfully concealed and later misrepresented her long-term relationship with defendant with which she continues to be materially associated; and that this concealment obstructed justice, abridged petitioner's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and prevented petitioner from receiving a valid de novo review in appellate court, which was unaware of the strong appearance of impropriety in the court below. Petitioner invokes Fifth Amendment protection because of its applicability to federal jurisdiction. [D]ue process under the Fifth Amendment, along with the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights, when applied by federal courts, does serve as the basic protection of the citizen against unjust federal action. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625 (1896), 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097. . . In such cases, there is neither an intervening state court system nor an intervening state constitution. It is, therefore, the Court's view that Fifth Amendment due process must be given an even broader connotation than Fourteenth Amendment due process. United States v. Townsend, 151 F.Supp. 378 (D.C.D.C. 1957), at 387. Petitioner further prays that the above cases be reassigned to a judge who is not associated with defendant so that they may be tried on their merits in a manner that will promote public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the federal judicial system and provide to the litigants the blessing of equal justice under the law. Appropriateness of Mandamus
It is well-settled that mandamus petition is the proper procedure for an appellate court to review a district judge for disqualification from a case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A judge's refusal to recuse himself in the face of a substantial challenge casts a shadow not only over the individual litigation but over the integrity of the federal judicial process as a whole. The shadow should be dispelled at the earliest possible opportunity by an authoritative judgment either upholding or rejecting the challenge. In recognition of this point we have been liberal in allowing the use of the extraordinary writ of mandamus to review orders denying motions to disqualify. Union Carbide Corp. v. U.S. Cutting Service, Inc., 782 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1986), at 712. (References deleted). Moreover, few situations are more appropriate for mandamus than a judge's wrongful refusal to disqualify himself. This court has long taken the position that there are 'few situations more appropriate for mandamus than a judge's clearly wrongful refusal to disqualify himself.' In re International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1980), at 926 citing Rosen v. Sugarman, 357 F.2d 794, 797 (2nd Cir. 1966). Although mandamus may be opposed on the premise that it should not to be used as a substitute for appeal, petitioner contends that no party should be required to submit to a presiding judge who has a prejudicial bent of mind, expecting that there will be another opportunity for justice after final judgment has been rendered. Rather, mandamus should be viewed as a means of avoiding a needless and judicially inefficient ordeal. [D]ue process . . . [requires] that a judge who is otherwise qualified to preside at trial or other proceeding must be sufficiently neutral and free of disposition to be able to render a fair decision. No person should be required to stand trial before a judge with a 'bent of mind.' Collins v. Dixie Transport, Inc., 543 So.2d 160 (1989), at 166 citing Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 33, 41 S.Ct. 230, 233, 65 L.Ed. 481 (1921); Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 17.5.5 Independence and Neutrality, p. 989 (1986). (Bold emphasis added). Obligation to Disclose
According to Shaman, et al., and the case law cited to support his determination, "...it is the obligation of a judge to disclose all facts that might be grounds for disqualification." (3) Further, Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association, which was codified with modifications as 28 U.S.C. § 455 and extensively reviewed by Abramson, (4) states, in part, "A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... ." Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Berrigan had a duty to disclose her association with Tulane before sitting in any case in which Tulane was a defendant. However, from Jan. 31, 1995 onward, Judge Berrigan continually violated this Code with respect to the petitioner's lawsuits against Tulane University when she sat and failed to make any disclosure. More significantly, as a member of the Board of Directors of a Tulane research center during the time she ruled and entered judgment in favor of Tulane, Judge Berrigan was specifically disqualified pursuant to U.S.C. 28 § 455(b)(5)(i). Judge Berrigan's actions infringed the ethical principle, elaborated by Shaman, et al. and supported by case law that, "It is not the duty of the parties to search out disqualifying facts about the judge . . . it is the judge's obligation to disclose all possibly disqualifying facts."(5) Quoting Justice Scalia in Liteky: ...[T]wo paragraphs of the [most recent] revision [of § 455] brought into § 455 elements of general 'bias and prejudice' recusal that had previously been addressed only by § 144. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) entirely duplicated the grounds of recusal set forth in § 144 ('bias or prejudice'), but (1) made them applicable to all justices, judges and magistrates (and not just district judges), and (2) placed the obligation to identify the existence of those grounds upon the judge himself, rather than requiring recusal only in response to a party affidavit. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994) at 548, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474. (Bold emphasis added). Willful Misrepresentation
Judge Berrigan's failure to make any disclosure of her material and continuing association with defendant over the course of four-and-one-half years as Presiding Judge, coupled with the alteration of her curriculum vitae and omission of her adjunct professorship from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, constitutes a willful misrepresentation designed to thwart discovery of her association with defendant. When confronted with the evidence of these actions, Judge Berrigan declined to respond. Her silence is self-implicating. Appendix, at A-6. This violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455 goes beyond mere negligence or harmless error and suggests that Judge Berrigan has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, perhaps derived from a sense of loyalty to the University. Nonetheless, the Judge's personal agenda should not be allowed to become an impediment to the cause of justice. Judge Berrigan's partisanship infringes on petitioner's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection and should not be tolerated. [T]here are two predicates for a 'wilful violation' of a rule of judicial conduct established by [the Supreme Court of Oregon], each of which is necessary for there to be a wilful violation: (1) that the judge must intend 'to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule' of judicial conduct, and (2) that the judge must be 'aware' of circumstances that in fact make the rule applicable, whether or not the judge knows that he violates the rule. In re Schenck, 870 P.2d 185 (Or. 1994), at 193. Once the facts of her association with defendant were discovered by petitioner and brought to her attention, Judge Berrigan responded, "There is no basis for the plaintiff's suggestion that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned by virtue of these . . . circumstances..." Appendix, at A-1. Judge Berrigan's disregard of disclosure principles are aggravated by the fact that she attempted to conceal the extent of her association with defendant by altering her curriculum vitae to create the appearance that her membership on the board of defendant's research center ended before petitioner's first lawsuit was filed on Jan. 31, 1995. Willful violations of judicial conduct are especially serious. With reference to Schenck, Shaman, et al. wrote: [A] judge will be subject to discipline (as distinct from reversal on appeal) for incorrectly failing to disqualify himself only where the failure was willful. The test is an objective one, and therefore a willful failure to disqualify may be present even though a judge states on the record that he does not believe disqualification is necessary. This approach has the advantage of requiring judges to look to an external standard in addition to their subjective feelings to decide if disqualification is necessary. It thus takes into account that disqualification is required if there is an appearance of partiality to the reasonable observer, and it precludes a judge from avoiding recusal merely by avowing his or her impartiality. In re Schenck, Id. at 189, 193-195 (Bold emphasis added).(6) Judges as Professors
With regard to writing, lecturing, and teaching, Shaman, et al. concluded: . . . [J]udges' personal and professional services must be dignified (footnote deleted) and, of course, must denote respect for and compliance with the law, these being the same restrictions that apply to all of a judge's extra-judicial activities whether compensated or not. Teaching requires that judges adhere to the same guidelines as apply to occasional or ad hoc lecturing, and also that the judge be sensitive to the nature of the institution at which she teaches. Thus judges should not sit in cases where the educational institution is a party. (Footnote deleted, bold emphasis added).(7) Prejudice in Favor of Defendant
At two critical junctures in petitioner's lawsuits against Tulane, one involving summary judgment (supra, at 2) and the other recusal, Judge Berrigan articulated decisions that she later reversed by rulings that favored defendant after "subsequent research." Appendix, at A-7. The collective evidence and questionable nature of the "subsequent research" leading to these reversals are consistent with the idea that Judge Berrigan relied upon knowledge acquired outside of the proceedings and displayed an unequivocal partiality that rendered fair judgment impossible. The duties of Judge Berrigan's adjunct professorship periodically bring her into professional and social contact with Tulane employees, students, administrators, and other professors. Thus, there is no barrier to her private, non-judicial association with the University. Judge Berrigan's contact with defendant subjects her to the receipt of extrajudicial information that can include rumor and innuendo about petitioner. Judge Berrigan has admitted to receiving information about petitioner from unnamed "lawyers in town, although I have not sought them out myself." Appendix, at A-7. It is difficult to imagine a more serious incursion on fairness than to permit the representative of one of the parties to privately communicate his recommendations to the decision makers. Camero v. United States, 375 F.2d 777 (U.S. Claims 1967), at 781. Animus Toward Petitioner
In a complaint of judicial misconduct and petition for writ of mandamus to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, petitioner documented Judge Berrigan's activities that presumably would require her disqualification. In her response to the latter petition, Judge Berrigan did not dispute any of the allegations raised against her. Appendix, at A-6. Although petitioner exposed the Judge's partisanship and raised questions about her integrity, Judge Berrigan nevertheless claimed that she "... do[es] not harbor any ill will towards Dr. Bernofsky." Appendix, at A-7. Given the gravity of the charges brought against her, this claim has a disingenuous ring. More likely, Judge Berrigan's ability to render impartial judgment has been irrevocably injured by petitioner's criticism of her judicial conduct, the only purpose of which was to justify her recusal. The basic requirement of constitutional due process is a fair and impartial tribunal, whether at the hands of a court, an administrative agency or a government hearing officer. The Supreme Court has consistently enforced this basic procedural right and held that decision makers are constitutionally unacceptable in the following circumstances [including] . . . where an adjudicator has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the party before him... Valley et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047 (5th Cir. 1997), at 1052. (References deleted, bold emphasis added). In a situation somewhat analogous to the case here under review, the Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence of defendant Avilez-Reyes and remanded his case to district court because defendant's attorney had participated in a judicial disciplinary proceeding a month earlier against the trial judge, who then erroneously failed to recuse himself. [W]e hold that Judge McBryde abused his discretion and reversibly erred by failing to recuse himself from the Avilez-Reyes' case. We conclude that a reasonable person, advised of all the circumstance of this case, would harbor doubts about Judge McBryde's impartiality. U.S. v. Avilez-Reyes 160 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1998), at 259. Prejudgment and Predisposition
In her response to petitioner's petition to the Fifth Circuit for mandamus, Judge Berrigan stated: [Dr. Bernofsky] has gone through some very difficult life transitions in recent years, some of which he genuinely perceives to [be] caused by the bias and fault of others, including myself. I regret that he continues to have that perception. Appendix, at A-7. The Judge's condescending assessment of petitioner's psychological state of mind is subjective and prejudicial. More importantly, her implication that petitioner's difficulties are not the "fault of others" reveals that she has already formed an opinion in this matter, seven months before the scheduled trial date of January 18, 2000, and before the completion of discovery or the taking of a single deposition. "[A]djudicative decisions . . . should be free of bias or prejudice. Thus an adjudicative decision maker should be disqualified if he or she has prejudged disputed adjudicative issues." Valley et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047 (5th Cir. 1997), at 1053. Moreover, "Prejudgment as to the facts . . . or reason to believe such exists, if fairly supported, would, in the Court's view, satisfy Section 144." Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, 324 F.Supp. 439 (E.D. Va. 1971), at 445. The basic requirement of constitutional due process is a fair and impartial tribunal, and the Supreme Court has consistently enforced this basic procedural right. The problem of a procedural defect arises when decision makers have prejudged the facts to such an extent that their minds are 'irrevocably closed' before actual adjudication. Valley, at 1052 citing Baran v. Port of Beaumont Navigation District of Jefferson County, 57 F.3d, 436 (5th Cir. 1995), at 446. Bias or prejudice on the part of a judge may exhibit itself prior to the trial by acts or statements on his part. Or it may appear during the trial by reason of the actions of the judge in the conduct of the trial. If it is known to exist before the trial it furnishes the basis for disqualification of the judge to conduct the trial. Section 144, Title 28, U.S. Code. Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458, (6th Cir. 1956), at 465. Rehearing denied 235 F.2d 129, cert. denied 352 U.S. 892, 77 S.Ct. 131, 1 L.Ed.2d 86. (Bold emphasis added). In the present case, Judge Berrigan's predisposition and bent of mind, as revealed by her actions and writing, satisfy the requirement for disqualification. Pervasive Bias and Prejudice
Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas, and Ginsburg, expressed in Liteky the majority Court opinion that: A favorable or unfavorable predisposition can also deserve to be characterized as 'bias' or 'prejudice' requiring recusal because, even though it springs from the facts adduced or the events occurring at trial, it is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. (That explains what some courts have called the 'pervasive bias exception' to the extrajudicial source doctrine. See, e.g., Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 188 (1976).) Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994), at 551. In Liteky, Justices Kennedy, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter challenged the extrajudicial source rule, arguing that undue emphasis should not be placed on the source of the contested mindset in determining whether disqualification is mandated by § 455(a). The statute does not refer to the source of the disqualifying partiality. And placing too much emphasis upon whether the source is extrajudicial or intrajudicial distracts from the central inquiry. One of the very objects of law is the impartiality of its judges in fact and appearance. . . . The relevant consideration under § 455(a) is the appearance of partiality, see Liljeberg, [Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988)], at 860, 108 S.Ct., at 2202-03, not where it originated or how it was disclosed. Liteky, Id. at 558. Justice Kennedy further expressed the opinion that the standard for disqualification under § 455(a) during the course of a judicial proceeding is too severe under Liteky and should be modulated to allow its intended protection. The [Supreme] Court holds that opinions arising during the course of judicial proceedings require disqualification under § 455(a) only if they 'display a deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.' (Reference deleted). That standard is not a fair interpretation of the statute, and is quite insufficient to serve and protect the integrity of the courts. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994), at 563. Section 455(a) . . . guarantee[s] not only that a partisan judge will not sit, but also that no reasonable person would have that suspicion. See Liljeberg, at 860. Liteky, Id. at 567. Notwithstanding the dichotomy of opinion over the extrajudicial source rule, petitioner contends that Judge Berrigan's long-standing, working relationship with Tulane University, and her duties as adjunct professor that bring her into contact with University administrators and faculty, meets the standard of a genuine extrajudicial source factor. Yet, even if this argument is discarded, the extraordinary circumstances of her prior rulings in Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School would re-qualify it on the basis of the "pervasive bias exception." And even if that argument were discarded, it would still be virtually impossible for Judge Berrigan to escape the appearance of partiality posed by the facts presented in the petition under review. It may be noted that some courts now admit prior rulings in considerations of bias and prejudice. Because we seek to protect the public's confidence in the judiciary, our inquiry focuses not on whether the judge actually harbored subjective bias, but rather on whether the record, viewed objectively, reasonably supports the appearance of prejudice or bias. United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568 (3d Cir.1995) at 574; United States v. Bertoli , 40 F.3d 1384, 1412 (3d Cir.1994); Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993) at 162; Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 98 (3d Cir.1992). In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3rd Cir. 1995), at 101. (Bold emphasis added). Determination of Impartiality
According to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), recusal is required whenever there exists a genuine question concerning a judge's impartiality. It may be argued that the determination of the judge concerned should be afforded great weight and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. However, in the matter here under review, it is clear that Judge Berrigan engaged in actions that, in the aggregate, constitute serious and erroneous abuse of judicial discretion. Judge Berrigan's claim of impartiality is contradicted by the facts of her working relationship with defendant and her willful concealment of these facts. Additionally, Judge Berrigan's deep seated favoritism toward defendant as revealed by prior rulings, and her "empathy" toward petitioner because he blames others for his "difficult life transitions" when he is the victim, demonstrates a pervasive bias that is so extreme as to indicate a clear inability to render fair judgment. The latter circumstance requires recusal. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994). The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that 'a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process,' in administrative adjudicatory proceedings as well as in courts. Michigan Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Shalala, 859 F.Supp. 1113, 1123 (W.D.Mich.1994) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 36, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1459, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975)). Thus, as stated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in the most recent Supreme Court case construing the analogous federal statute on judicial disqualification, '[i]f through obduracy, honest mistake, or simple inability to attain self knowledge the judge fails to acknowledge a disqualifying predisposition or circumstance, an appellate court must order recusal no matter what the source.' Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 563, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1161, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring). This is because, as our court of appeals has declared, '[l]itigants ought not have to face a judge where there is a reasonable question of impartiality . . . .' Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d. 155, 162 (3d Cir.1993). D.B. v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Educ., 985 F.Supp 457 (D.N.J. 1997), at 540. (Bold emphasis added). Furthermore, no judge should have ultimate authority over what constitutes his or her own conflict of interest. No longer is a judge's introspective estimate of his own ability impartially to hear a case the determinate of disqualification under § 455. The standard now is objective. It asks what a reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts would think about the impartiality of the judge. Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, (6th Cir. 1980), at 129. On remand, 538 F.supp 424. (References deleted, bold emphasis added). The sentiments expressed in Roberts v. Bailar, Id., are generally reinforced in Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994). In the final analysis, a reasonable person would question the impartiality of any judge who was an adjunct faculty member at a defendant university and had a continuing association with that university during even part of the time the case was before him or her. U.S. Senator John Breaux recently indicated that he would be receptive toward legislation "...establishing a presumption of conflict of interest and automatic recusal for judges... [who are] ...adjunct professors presiding as judges over civil cases in which the school at which that professor teaches is named as a defendant." Appendix, at A-10. Inquiring further into this situation, U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu has "...taken the liberty of contacting the appropriate officials, here in Washington, to request a report." Appendix, at A-12. The concern expressed by the above legislators over the issue of recusal for adjunct faculty judges is clear, and indisputably, Louisiana's duly-elected U.S. senators are reasonable people. To maintain the integrity of the federal judicial system, the Court must be concerned whether the parties received fair and impartial treatment of their claims. At the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process, the welfare of the parties must receive priority over other considerations should a violation of § 455(a) occur. In the matter presently under review, justice requires that the District Court's judgment be vacated and the issues placed before a new judge. "The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact." Liljeberg, 486 U.S. 847, at 870 quoting Public Utilities Comm'n of D.C. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 466-467, 72 S.Ct. 813, 822-823, 96 L.Ed. 1068 (1952). (Frankfurter, J., in chambers). Judge Berrigan's conduct has cast a long shadow on the litigation that is now before her, and recusal is the only remedy that will renew the public's faith in the integrity and fairness of the judicial system, prompt other judges to more carefully search for and disclose grounds for disqualification, and restore impartiality to the litigants in the judicial process. When statutory standards for recusal are met, as has been demonstrated here, the trial judge should step aside and let another judge, who is not associated with the defendant, be assigned. Furthermore, under the extraordinary circumstance created by the new knowledge that Judge Berrigan was disqualified at the time she granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and pursuant to a finding of willful negligence and prejudicial conduct by the District Court, petitioner respectfully prays to be relieved from the operation of summary judgment in Civil Action No. 97-358 (Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School), so that the case can be fairly tried by a jury on its merits in front of an impartial judge who is not associated with the defendant. In conclusion, petitioner, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, respectfully prays that a writ of mandamus be issued by this Court directed to respondent, the Honorable Ginger Berrigan Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, directing her to vacate her order denying petitioner's motion for recusal and disqualify herself from presiding in the action now pending before her, and to grant all other requested relief as the Court may deem proper. Respectfully submitted,
s/ Carl Bernofsky
Carl Bernofsky, Petitioner Pro Se (In Proper Person) 6478 General Diaz Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 (504) 486-4639 I certify that one copy each of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus was hand delivered on or about August 26, 1999 to judge respondent and counsel for plaintiff and that three copies were hand delivered to counsel for defendant at the addresses indicated below. A separate, notarized certificate shows the actual date of service. The Hon. Ginger Berrigan, Judge U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 500 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 589-7515 - Respondent
Victor R. Farrugia, Esq. 228 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 1028 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 525-0250 - Counsel for Plaintiff
Julie D. Livaudais, Esq. G. Phillip Shuler, III, Esq. Richard B. Ramirez, Esq. Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, L.L.P. 2300 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 (504) 585-7000 - Counsel for Defendant - Respondent
s/ Carl Bernofsky
Carl Bernofsky, Petitioner Pro Se (In Proper Person) 6478 General Diaz Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 (504) 486-4639 Footnotes
1. Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1997 , Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
2. Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1998 , Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
3. Judicial Conduct and Ethics, 2 ed., Shaman, J.M., Lubet, S., Alfini, J.J.; Michie Law Pub., Charlottesville, VA (1995), p. 146.
4. Judicial Disqualification under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 2 ed., Abramson, L.W., American Judicature Soc., Chicago, IL (1992), pp. 1-48.
5. Footnote 3, p. 146.
6. Judicial Conduct and Ethics, 2 ed., Shaman, J.M., Lubet, S., Alfini, J.J.; Michie Law Pub., Charlottesville, VA (1995), p. 97.
7. Ibid., pp. 240-241.
APPENDIX
(Items can be viewed in the document PDF)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Order,
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse,
- Prepared 11/23/98
A-1 Opinion,
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Dismissing Plaintiff's Appeal of District Court's Order,
- Prepared 02/02/99
A-2 Order,
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Granting Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw,
- Prepared 02/08/99
A-4 Order,
- Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit, Affirming Appellate Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint of Judicial Misconduct,
- Prepared 04/19/99
A-5 Response,
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Trial Judge's Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
- Prepared 06/21/99
A-6 Order,
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Denying Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
- Prepared 07/06/99
A-9 Letter,
- U.S. Senator John Breaux to Carl Bernofsky, Concerning Adjunct Faculty Judges,
- Prepared 05/24/99
A-10 Letter,
- U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu to Carl Bernofsky, Concerning Adjunct Faculty Judges,
- Prepared 07/01/99
A-12
Help Balance the Scales of Justice!
Web site created November, 1998 This section last modified July, 2007
| Home | Site Map | About Bernofsky | Curriculum Vitae | Lawsuits | Case Calendar |
| Judicial Misconduct | Judicial Reform | Contact | Interviews | Disclaimer |
This Web site is not associated with Tulane University or its affiliates
© 1998-2015 Carl Bernofsky - All rights reserved
