This move placed two additional burdens on the plaintiff and her attorney. First, the cost of the proceedings was greater than at the district level and second, the travel distance to attend hearings increased fifty-fold.
An advantage was also inadvertently given. The judge who was appointed to sit at this session was known for his fairness and knowledge of the law.
Al Garret immediately filed an amended complaint to the federal court which could rule on federal laws as well as state. In it, he listed six charges against Belmont University: 1. Violation of due process; 2. violation of constitutional law; 3. violation of the state administrative procedures act; 4. violation of the state open meeting law; 5. violation of the state access to public records and 6. violation of the fair employment practices act.
With the listing of these charges, he asked that the court issue a restraining order, an injunction that would order the respondent, Belmont University, to grant the plaintiff her right to a fair and impartial hearing by the university and access to the documents that had been withheld from her.
It was at this time, shortly after the final university hearing had ended, that Diana began getting threatening phone calls. She was told to drop the court proceedings if she didn't want something really bad to happen to her.
After the initial hearing on the complaint and before any decision was handed down by the judge, Murrain filed a motion for summary judgment on counts three, four, five and six—all of the counts related to state law. In effect, he was asking the judge to throw out the four charges for lack of validity.
His motion caused a veritable flurry of other motions from both sides and effectively delayed the process of law by dividing the charges. It also increased the cost to the plaintiff. It was a gamble for the university. If it paid off, it would cut the charges down to two—both federal, while disposing of all the others. If it didn't? No problem, there were always appeals to be made that could continue the process indefinitely.
At the hearing on these motions, Al Garret limited his argument to a synopsis of his brief. He carefully related the applicable laws and requested that the defendant, Belmont University, be ordered to grant a fair, open hearing to the plaintiff, Diana. Also, that the plaintiff be supplied with the student feedback evaluations she had requested and that had been denied to her.
Al was an intelligent work-horse of an attorney. At 57, he took his legal duties seriously. His heavy glasses with their thick rims gave him a scholastic air. All that was needed to complete the image of absent minded professor was a pipe. He had diligently searched the literature for precedents which he presented to the judge in a mild but measured tone. A reasonable man, he projected this image to the court and made a fine presentation. No sparkle, just facts and precedents clearly presented.
When the judge turned his attention to the respondent, Simon Murrain stood to address the court looking more like a walking advertisement for expensive men's wear than an attorney. Simon oozed charm with all the proficiency of a hangman leading the way to the gallows. Close to Al in age, Simon was of a different bent. His argument was presented with show and words—it worked well with juries who tended to watch him instead of what he said. Today, there was no jury present, but his modus operandi didn't change.