There is an old legal adage that anyone who represents themselves in court “has a fool for a client.” When individuals choose to act as their own attorney, objectivity vanishes, emotions often take over, and the nuances of statutory law are frequently lost.
That dynamic was on full display last week in the 4th Judicial District Court during the residency qualification challenge brought by Mrs. Brenda Shelling against her District 7 Monroe City School Board opponents, Jennifer Newman and Tyrone “K9” Dickens.
The burden of proof rested squarely on Mrs. Shelling, requiring her to prove the legal elements of her challenge. Dickens hired legal counsel, Newman did not—though neither strictly needed to, given that it was Mrs. Shelling’s job to prove her claims.
At 82 years old, Mrs. Shelling demonstrated remarkable resolve in bringing her case forward. She did her research, and prepared her presentation, but it quickly became apparent to everyone in the courtroom that she lacked a basic understanding of the law, courtroom procedure and rules of evidence:
- She was unaware that a plaintiff cannot simply make unsworn statements or present hearsay—such as text messages or phone calls—as factual evidence.
- She did not realize that sending ex parte communications to a judge requesting documents without notifying the defense is improper.
- She was unfamiliar with rules requiring advance disclosure of evidence to opposing parties.
- She did not understand the need to establish a legal foundation before making assertions about personal relationships.
Faced with these procedural hurdles, retiring Judge Wilson Rambo provided a masterclass in judicial demeanor, patience, and fairness. Rather than strictly enforcing court rules that could have promptly ended the proceedings, Judge Rambo bent over backwards to accommodate Mrs. Shelling out of respect for her age and her long service to the community.
When Mrs. Shelling attempted to make statements directly to the court, Judge Rambo explained the process, placed her under oath, put her in the witness box, and asked guiding questions to help her structure her claims. When she insisted on calling an un-subpoenaed witness who was not present, the judge permitted the witness to be contacted by phone from the courtroom. When the witness resisted appearing, Judge Rambo ordered a sheriff’s deputy to locate and bring the witness to court, pausing proceedings until she arrived.
Similarly, when Mrs. Shelling asserted that tax records proved Newman’s residence elsewhere, Judge Rambo politely instructed her that claims must be backed by physical evidence. He recessed the court, allowing her time to go down to the parish tax assessor’s office to retrieve the documents to support her claims. The court waited patiently, only for the records to ultimately show no connection to Ms. Newman.
A hearing that under standard rules might have concluded within an hour stretched into six hours. Very few judges would have extended such latitude to a pro se litigant. Ultimately, Judge Rambo ruled against Mrs. Shelling based on the law and the evidence, ordering her to pay the associated court costs as required by statute. Yet, even in ruling against her, he maintained an atmosphere of utmost respect.
Judge Rambo’s handling of the case reflected the wisdom of Solomon.
It stands as a testament to his long tenure on the bench and demonstrates the invaluable perspective that decades of judicial experience bring to the courtroom.
