My personal zero-hour approaches: Tomorrow (Nov. 23, 2010), 9 AM, courtroom # 1106, Daley Center at 50 W. Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois.
I am the defendant in a case I’ve blogged about on this site thrice before. The word “reparation” (or a derivative) appears in their titles.
So, what’s the worst thing the judge could do to me? Brrr…I hate asking such questions, but one must be prepared.
Contempt of Court
The most immediate danger would be a Contempt of Court citation which, in the worst case, plants me behind bars. “Isn’t that rather extreme,” you might ask? The judge might feign fairness by offering me the option of paying a fine or sitting in the can. But that’s not really an option at all, since I have no money to pay a fine. And I wouldn’t pay, even if I could. A citizen’s life in America is full of such “options,” but don’t get me started on that. I want to keep today’s posting brief.
How to be contemptuous…let me count the ways:
· Years ago, when in court as a Plaintiff, I saw the wall to my left dominated with huge stainless steel letters spelling out: “In God We Trust.” If the same words are there tomorrow, I want to issue an objection to that. You know the drill: If you disagree with an aspect of the proceedings, you get to say, “I object.” My objection: “These words taint the proceedings by attempting to establish, within a purely secular realm [this courtroom], an unmistakable message: The Judeo-Christian version of justice rules here. Of course, I (as a Buddhist) wish to advocate a superior version of justice: That of karmic law.”
· If the bailiff announces, upon the entrance of the judge, “Hear ye, hear ye…..All rise….” I shall remain seated. If, again, the bailiff (this time glaring at me, maybe even patting the gun on his hip) says, “ALL rise,” I will say, “I object for two reasons: To insist that I rise would be a violation of my religious beliefs and of the spirit of the US Declaration of Independence: ‘All men are created equal…” I neither bow before kings nor rise before judges.” [NOTE: If President Obama were to enter my presence, I wouldn’t bow before him or call him ‘sir’ or any of that. My lack of deference, in his case, wouldn’t land me in jail. Why should failure to rise before a judge do so?]
· About that “Your Honor” business: My google search shows this entity to be the judge hearing my case: Honorable E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. I have no problem calling him judge; I have every problem calling him “Your Honor.” I doubt this will come up but, hey, it’s a courtroom…a Chicago courtroom to boot…so anything’s possible. My only honorable answer: “I can call you ‘judge’ because it’s obvious that’s what you are. I can’t call you ‘Your Honor’ since it’s not obvious at all that you are honorable.” [NOTE: US Senators and Representatives are addressed as the “Honorable” so-and-so. Hmm…maybe the word “honorable” has been stripped of its ancient and righteous meaning.]
But Judge Wright is Black, therefore…
Therefore? Therefore, what? Therefore…nothing.
No advantage to me. You might think my attempt to represent myself as paying money as Reparations to the United Negro College Fund, instead of to my credit card company Discover, would resonate with such a judge. And what a judge! A true rags-to-riches story. A flesh-and-blood personification of the American Dream. Judge Wright is one of 12 children, born to the father of a sharecropper. Judge Wright, from 2008-2009, had the distinction of becoming President of the Chicago Bar Association – the first time a sitting judge ever held that post. [And only the fifth Black man to do so.]
His brief bio, courtesy of Northwestern University Law School, is impressive to say the least:
But…Barack Obama also had an impressive resume. But…that didn’t stop President Obama from ordering US non-participation in the Durban Review Conference in 2009. That’s the Conference that was, among other things, going to address the issue of Reparations to those (descendants) of those directly injured by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Our President had his “reasons” but Naomi Klein’s article blew his reasons out of the water:
TITLE: Minority Death Match: Jews, blacks, and the “Post-Racial” Presidency”
Appearing In: Harper’s Magazine, September 2009
Bottom Line? In my life, I have encountered a fair number of Blacks who labored mightily to align themselves with Whitey. A few were people I thought could be allies – people with whom I might find common cause. I guess there’s an irony here:
Just because someone is Black doesn’t automatically mean they support Black causes; just because someone is White (that would be me) doesn’t automatically mean they support White causes.
Go figure.
About the “In God We Trust” Signage
I might object to the presence, in the courtroom, of “In God We Trust” boldly emblazoned on the wall. The judge might well ask, “Do you suggest we take it down?”
“Not at all, judge. For now, all I’d like is token recognition of a minority viewpoint.” At which time I would pull out a piece of paper with the word “Buddha” scrawled on it, saying, “While I’m here, I ask that this paper be taped over the word ‘God.’”
I suppose a cynic might sneer: “Your edited sign would then read – In Buddha We Trust. Isn’t it rather pretentious that you suppose to speak for all of us? For most of us would not endorse ‘In Buddha WE trust.’”
But…the majority has no problem imposing its view on the minority – one of whom proposes this change only for this one session of court.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The money it cost to install this In God We Trust signage could have fed a hungry child. Makes me angry just thinking about that.”
No comments:
Post a Comment