|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to Respondent's Brief in Opposition to 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 _________________________________________ Petitioner's Reply Brief _________________________________________
CARL BERNOFSKY
6478 General Diaz Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
(504) 486-4639
Petitioner, Pro Se
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Respondent, Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, has called into question the relationship of the Honorable Ginger Berrigan with Tulane University. Petitioner, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, by means of the documentary evidence appended herewith, corrects errors of fact introduced by respondent.
TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS (ii) (1) (2) (3) CONCLUSION (3) (4) APPENDIX (A-i) (A-i) (A-1)
I. Judge Berrigan's Adjunct Professorship
Respondent makes the claim that Judge Berrigan is not an adjunct faculty member at Tulane University and that her only involvement with teaching at Tulane was as a substitute teacher for the course taught by Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. Respondent's Brief in Opposition, at 4. Despite these assertions, Federal District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan was Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Tulane University for many years and taught the course, Trial Advocacy, during the 1995-96 academic year. Appendix, at A-1 & A-2. Since then, Judge Berrigan has maintained a professional association with Tulane through her continued participation in the Law School's Judicial Externship Program (Appendix, at A-3 to A-5), and as a substitute instructor for the course, Federal Practice & Procedure: Trials, taught by Adjunct Professor, Federal District Court Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. Appendix, at A-6 & A-7. Judge Berrigan's desire to continue her professional relationship with Tulane as adjunct professor is demonstrated by her intention to participate in the Law School's Judicial Externship Program until at least 2000, as evidenced in the current Tulane Law School Catalog. Appendix, at A-5. From petitioner's prior knowledge, Tulane's adjunct faculty appointments are made for periods of one or more academic years that begin on July 1st and end the following June 30th. Tulane's latest claim that "Judge Berrigan is not an adjunct faculty member," indicates that her latest appointment was allowed to lapse or not renewed, perhaps as a means of "damage control." This also raises the possibility of ex parte communications between the Judge and defendant. The non-renewal of Judge Berrigan's adjunct appointment, coupled with Tulane's vigorous efforts to refute her association with defendant and justify her right to sit in the proceedings currently before her, implies that Judge Berrigan may be more valuable to Tulane as a judge than as a teacher. These actions raise a material question of Tulane's underlying motivation in its strenuous opposition to an impartial judge. II. Judge Berrigan's Board Membership Respondent makes the claim that Judge Berrigan's membership on the Board of Directors of Tulane University's Amistad Research Center ended in 1994, just before petitioner filed his first lawsuit against Tulane in January, 1995. Respondent's Brief in Opposition, at 3. Despite respondent's assertion, Federal District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan reported in the 1995, 1996, and 1997 editions of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary that she had a continuing membership in Tulane's Amistad Research Center during all of those years. Appendix, at A-8 to A-10. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary is updated twice annually, allowing her adequate opportunities to make earlier corrections. Moreover, Judge Berrigan never indicated that those entries were erroneous when her membership on Amistad's Board of Directors was pointed out in petitioner's initial motion for her recusal. Bernofsky v. Tulane, Civil Action No. 98-1792, Docket No. 18 (E.D. La. Oct. 15, 1998). It was only after petitioner had discovered Judge Berrigan's continuing membership in Tulane's Amistad Research Center and raised objections to her adjudication in his lawsuits against Tulane that Judge Berrigan altered her record. The altered record appears in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary for 1998. Appendix, at A-11. It creates the appearance that Judge Berrigan did not serve as a director of a Tulane research center during the time that she presided in petitioner's lawsuits against Tulane. Respondent now utilizes this newly-created record to support the claim that Judge Berrigan was not associated with the defendant when she sat in petitioner's cases against Tulane. This appears to be another attempt at "damage control." III. Tulane's Amistad Research Center Tulane is justifiably proud of its Amistad Research Center and represents it publically as a Tulane University affiliate in newspapers and directories. Appendix, at A-12 & A-13, respectively. Far from being an independent entity, the Amistad Research Center takes its place among the many centers established at Tulane University. Appendix, at A-14. Despite respondent's assertion of Amistad Center's total independence, the Center is subject to many of the same regulations imposed by Tulane on other centers located on its campus, and the financial and other material support that the Amistad Center receives from Tulane, as outlined in the initial Petition, is undisputed. The integration of Amistad's key administrative personnel (Appendix, at A-15) into the Tulane family is exemplified by the listing of Amistad's Executive Director and Comptroller in Tulane University's Directory for Faculty and Staff. Appendix, at A-16 & A-17, respectively. CONCLUSION The arguments for mandamus put forth in the initial Petition remain unchanged, except they have acquired greater significance as a result of respondent's recent claims that were clearly intended to mislead this Honorable Court. That the Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, willfully concealed her material and long-term association with the defendant during the years that she sat in judgment of petitioner's lawsuits against Tulane University is undisputed. To offset this state of affairs, respondent has attempted to minimize the significance of Judge Berrigan's association with the defendant. However, as demonstrated herein, respondent could accomplish this only by relying on misrepresentations of fact. The extraordinary behavior of Judge Berrigan warrants the extraordinary remedy afforded by mandamus. For the reasons stated here and in the initial Petition, petitioner, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, respectfully prays that a writ be issued by this Honorable 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 relief as the Court may deem proper.
Oct. 7, 1999
Dates/ Carl Bernofsky
Carl Bernofsky, Petitioner Pro Se
(In Proper Person)
6478 General Diaz Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
(504) 486-4639
APPENDIX
(Items can be viewed in document PDF)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit 1
- Online catalog listing of the 1995-1996 Trial Advocacy Faculty, showing Judge Berrigan as Associate Professor, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Web site.
A-1 Exhibit 2
- Listing of the 1995-1996 Trial Advocacy Faculty, showing Judge Berrigan as Associate Professor, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Catalog for 1995-96, p. 104.
A-2 Exhibit 3
- Listing of the 1996-1997 Judicial Externship Faculty, showing Judge Berrigan's participation in this program, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Catalog for 1996-97, p. 107.
A-3 Exhibit 4
- Listing of the 1997-1998 Judicial Externship Faculty, showing Judge Berrigan's participation in this program, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Catalog for 1997-98, p. 103
A-4 Exhibit 5
- Listing of the 1998-2000 Judicial Externship Faculty, showing Judge Berrigan's intention to continue her participation in this program, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Catalog for 1998-2000, p. 103.
A-5 Exhibit 6
- Description of Judge Berrigan's teaching activity as a substitute instructor for Judge Charles Schwarz's section of the course, "Federal Practice & Procedure: Trials," from Bernofsky v. Tulane, Civil Action No. 98-1792, Docket No. 24 (E.D. La. Nov. 23, 1998).
A-6 Exhibit 7
- Course description of "Federal Practice & Procedure: Trials," offered in sections, including the one taught by Judge Charles Schwarz, excerpted from the Tulane Law School Catalog for 1998-2000, p. 55.
A-7 Exhibit 8
- Judge Berrigan's curriculum vitae for 1995, showing her continuing board membership on Tulane's Amistad Research Center, excerpted from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1995, Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
A-8 Exhibit 9
- Judge Berrigan's curriculum vitae for 1996, showing her continuing board membership on Tulane's Amistad Research Center, excerpted from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1996, Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
A-9 Exhibit 10
- Judge Berrigan's curriculum vitae for 1997, showing her continuing board membership on Tulane's Amistad Research Center, excerpted from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1997, Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
A-10 Exhibit 11
- Judge Berrigan's curriculum vitae for 1998, indicating that her board membership on Tulane's Amistad Research Center ended in 1994, excerpted from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, 1998, Vol. 1, 5th Circuit, p. 3.
A-11 Exhibit 12
- Tulane's public representation of the Amistad Research Center as a Tulane affiliate, excerpted from the local newspaper, Gambit Weekly, July 21, 1998, p. 47.
A-12 Exhibit 13
- Tulane's public listing of the Amistad Research Center as a Tulane subsidiary, excerpted from the Greater New Orleans White Pages, Business Section, 1998-99, p. 283.
A-13 Exhibit 14
- The Amistad Research Center as one of many Tulane Centers, taken January, 1999 from Tulane's Web site, Tulane Academic Resources - Centers.
A-14 Exhibit 15
- Listing of Amistad Research Center Staff, taken January, 1999 from Tulane's Web site, Amistad Research Center Home Page - Staff.
A-15 Exhibit 16
- Listing of Donald Devore, Executive Director of Amistad Research Center, in Tulane's Online X.500 Directory for Faculty and Staff, taken January, 1999 from Tulane's Web site.
A-16 Exhibit 17
- Listing of Alvery Rodney, Comptroller of Amistad Research Center, in Tulane's Online X.500 Directory for Faculty and Staff, taken January, 1999 from Tulane's Web site.
A-17
Help Balance the Scales of Justice!
Web site created November, 1998 This section last modified July, 2007
| Home Page | 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
