Last time I ended talking about the GREAT side of persecution. I do indeed want to underscore that aspect of it. This part will talk a bit about the legal side of things.
After a couple of years of lawsuit, Judge Foy Guin finally handed down a verdict in the Bishop v Aaronov case. (Aaronov was the first name on the list of the University Board of Trustees). Our attorneys had asked for a summary judgement, which meant there was no "trial" in the calling witnesses sense. Simply, the Judge studied the writting information and made a decision based on the facts of the case. Judge Guin decided in MY favor, that the US Constitution First Amendment was included JUST for situations like mine. We won! Go figure!
I was planning our big celebration when our attorneys wisely said, "Not so fast." And they were right.
Within a short time the University had filed an appeal of Judge Guin's opinion to the 11th Ciricuit Court of Appeals. Go figure. Here we go again. At least this time I didn't have to do much.
Brenda, Daniel and I drove over to ATL to hear the arguments. Judge Birch challenged the UA attorney on "will the university be monitoring all prof's speech all the time to ascertain what can and cannot be said?" Wow, I was ready to plan another celebration. "Not so fast!" said my attorneys, and once again they were right.
In a terrible decision, from my perspective, they said that any employer could rule as to what any employee could say in their work. What happened to the First Amendment?
I wasn't the only one who found the decision in what was now Bishop v Coleman. A famous University Law school Professor at the univ. of Chicago found the decision so objectionable that he volunteered to write our Supreme Court Brief for nothing. And that was good, because NOTHING accurately described the funds I had available.
He wrote a brilliant Supreme Court Brief, but despite this, we were denied a hearing. It was now OVER. Well not quite, one more post will summarize what happened next.
After a couple of years of lawsuit, Judge Foy Guin finally handed down a verdict in the Bishop v Aaronov case. (Aaronov was the first name on the list of the University Board of Trustees). Our attorneys had asked for a summary judgement, which meant there was no "trial" in the calling witnesses sense. Simply, the Judge studied the writting information and made a decision based on the facts of the case. Judge Guin decided in MY favor, that the US Constitution First Amendment was included JUST for situations like mine. We won! Go figure!
I was planning our big celebration when our attorneys wisely said, "Not so fast." And they were right.
Within a short time the University had filed an appeal of Judge Guin's opinion to the 11th Ciricuit Court of Appeals. Go figure. Here we go again. At least this time I didn't have to do much.
Brenda, Daniel and I drove over to ATL to hear the arguments. Judge Birch challenged the UA attorney on "will the university be monitoring all prof's speech all the time to ascertain what can and cannot be said?" Wow, I was ready to plan another celebration. "Not so fast!" said my attorneys, and once again they were right.
In a terrible decision, from my perspective, they said that any employer could rule as to what any employee could say in their work. What happened to the First Amendment?
I wasn't the only one who found the decision in what was now Bishop v Coleman. A famous University Law school Professor at the univ. of Chicago found the decision so objectionable that he volunteered to write our Supreme Court Brief for nothing. And that was good, because NOTHING accurately described the funds I had available.
He wrote a brilliant Supreme Court Brief, but despite this, we were denied a hearing. It was now OVER. Well not quite, one more post will summarize what happened next.
No comments:
Post a Comment