In his May 4 letter (“Chief justice’s courthouse/free-speech deal”), William Palazzo of Coventry complains that he and his brother did not get their day in court in their much-publicized dispute with state Sen. Stephen D. Alves of West Warwick.

Mr. Palazzo failed to disclose that not only did he and his brother get their day in court, they got it twice. The Palazzos prevailed in a 2004 case when the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Alan Palazzo after Senator Alves appealed a lower-court ruling. A judgment for $47,000 was later entered in Alan Palazzo’s favor as a result of that Supreme Court decision. The court noted that William Palazzo had opted not to continue litigation and had settled. Case closed.

Not so fast. William Palazzo neglected in his letter to say that he and his brother later decided they wanted a second bite at the apple to seek damages against Senator Alves, and both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court said no. According to state statute, the claim for damages should have been made in the original case. In the opinion written by Justice William P. Robinson III, the court noted it was disturbed at the Palazzos’ bid for double recovery in the same case, and had given serious consideration to imposing sanctions against them. “We are more than persuaded that the instant plaintiffs have had their day in court — and then some,” the court wrote.

Supreme Court decisions are based on principle and law, not the whim that Mr. Palazzo would have you believe. Because he did not like the second Supreme Court decision, he slandered the Supreme Court in his letter and wildly accused Chief Justice Frank J. Williams of trading his integrity in this decision in order to secure Senate backing for the proposed Blackstone Valley Courthouse. To suggest that the second Palazzo opinion was a tradeoff for a new courthouse does not just malign Chief Justice Williams; it defames every justice who participated in the decision.

If the chief justice is so cozy with the Senate, how does Mr. Palazzo explain that the judiciary saw its 2008 enacted budget cut by $2.5 million in the supplemental budget recently passed by both the House and Senate?

When letters that are short on significant facts get printed, it perpetuates the low esteem in which Rhode Islanders hold their state and their government. Our citizens deserve better than to be subjected to reckless and inaccurate mudslinging from a disgruntled litigant who has had his day in court — twice.

CRAIG N. BERKE

Providence

The writer is director of communications for the Rhode Island Judiciary.