Archives for October 2025

🔎 Statement on Recent Institutional Changes Following Federal Appellate Developments

LAFAYETTE, LA – OCTOBER 24, 2025 – Request Filed By: Mr. Ogbebor
To Whom It May Concern:
In the months following the federal appellate court’s decision to vacate and remand my civil rights case for further proceedings, significant administrative and staffing changes have occurred within the University of Louisiana at Lafayette that was initially named as a defendant.

It is important to clarify that the university’s later removal as a party was based solely on a technical naming issue, not on the merits of the claims presented. The appellate decision itself stands as a recognition that important constitutional and procedural questions warranted further review.

While the University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s internal decisions regarding personnel are their own, the timing of these developments highlights broader questions about institutional accountability and oversight. My focus remains on ensuring that the underlying issues — transparency, fairness, and the protection of individual rights — continue to receive the public attention they deserve.

I share this update not to speculate, but to document the ongoing real-world impact of a case that began with fundamental concerns about due process and equal protection under the law.
Respectfully,
Mr. Ogbebor

🔎 Plaintiff Calls Attention to Irregular Court Communications Surrounding Louisiana Injunction

LAFAYETTE, LA – OCTOBER 21, 2025 – Request Filed By: Mr. Ogbebor
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Ogbebor, a civil-rights litigant in ongoing federal and state proceedings, has revealed a serious irregularity in the handling of a state-court permanent injunction that was widely circulated to third parties far beyond the scope allowed by law.

Court records show that when the injunction was issued, copies were sent not only to the parties in the case but also to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette , the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, and even the Louisiana Supreme Court — none of which were parties to the proceeding or proper recipients under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

However, when Mr. Ogbebor later filed a motion to dissolve that injunction, and the court issued an order denying it, those same third parties were not copied. The selective omission of recipients in the later filings strongly suggests that court personnel recognized the impropriety of the earlier dissemination and quietly corrected course without formal acknowledgment.

“This isn’t about a personal dispute,” Mr. Ogbebor stated. “It’s about transparency and fairness. If an order is circulated publicly to harm someone’s reputation, the same institutions deserve to know when that order’s validity is challenged. Justice requires equal notice, not selective communication.”

Mr. Ogbebor has called for the record to be corrected to ensure that all recipients of the original injunction are formally notified of subsequent developments, and for judicial administrators to review dissemination practices that risk reputational harm or violate due-process standards.

Legal observers note that the pattern raises constitutional questions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause and the “stigma-plus” doctrine established in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), which prohibits government actors from imposing reputational harm without fair procedure.

Mr. Ogbebor intends to continue pursuing corrective relief through proper legal channels while advocating publicly for procedural integrity in Louisiana’s courts.
Respectfully,
Mr. Ogbebor