Yes, I stood before the judge. But…the whole purpose of this day in court was to meet my credit card’s attorney to see if we could negotiate a settlement. I didn’t know that – I was prepared to channel Perry Mason and defend as best I could.
We met out in the hall, out of earshot of the judge who was tending to other matters. The attorney was a young, energetic black man dressed in a suit straight out of GQ. He was sharp as a tack but very nice. Our meeting was brief and I ended up telling him, “I would rather go to jail than pay Discover Card even one thin dime. In fact, my current situation with the Internal Revenue Service (as confessed in writing before this court) could well serve to make that happen.”
So we shook hands and I went back into the courtroom. My name was announced about 10 minutes later, so I (acting as my own lawyer) walked up to the judge. Next to me stood another attorney for Discover Card – an attractive young woman in her mid-thirties. The judge said my legal brief was the most unusual and interesting she’d read in a while. And the attractive and (as it turned out) pleasant attorney said, “I couldn’t put it down.”
Our meeting at the bench was brief, with a trial date set for April 5. The judge offered an observation concerning one of my arguments, saying [in effect]: “If you try to argue that you (as a first party) paying a third party, to whom a second party owes money, is effectively the same as paying a debt you owe that second party, that argument won’t wash.”
Of course that was a reference to me donating money to the United Negro College Fund, instead of paying my monthly credit card payment. My claim is that Discover Card (as well as other financials) owes payments in the form of Reparations for having benefitted from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Discover owes and isn’t paying, so I decided to redirect my monthly payments to the UNCF on behalf of Discover Card (without their authorization to do so, by the way).
I basically told the judge, “I’ll take my chances.”
While sitting in the gallery awaiting my turn…
When I arrived outside courtroom 1106, I was amazed to see a printout taped to the wall listing well over 100 cases to be heard on this date. I thought, “OMG, I’ll be here all day!”
But, lo and behold, each case was being processed in rapid fire succession. A few words were mumbled at the bench and then the clerk date-stamped documents to indicate closure. I thought, “So what’s going on here? Is this a rubberstamping operation?”
In one case, the judge explained to a defendant:
“If I borrow money to buy a $100,000 house, I don’t get to pay back just $100,000. It’s more like $300,000.”
I thought: “Usury. Too bad these defendants, and millions more like them, didn’t have any say-so in setting upper limits to interest rates. Their lawmakers were bought off by the banks long ago.”
I hung around for a bit after my session with the judge ended. I was kind of hoping two people would show up: Representatives from two local weekly newspapers – the Chicago Reader (mostly for young liberals, with a focus on night life) and the Chicago Defender (an institution in the Black community for decades). Two weeks prior to my court date, I’d sent them a detailed e-mail (which neither bothered to answer) with this subject line:
Black Reparations lawsuit going to court
That was an attention-grabber, I supposed. But maybe a deal-killer (for nobody showed up) was how I closed my transmission:
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“For those who’d supported (and been sold out by) Barack Obama, the game is over. I ask for your help in getting elected and in electing true independents to Congress. There is no other way.”
Ah, I had dissed Obama. As if I wasn’t aware that all he needs is more time. Not to mention more Congressmen who will vote with him.
“I’ll take my chances”
So why did I tell the judge “I’ll take my chances?” Why do I want to present my case in court for a full and open hearing? There are at least two good reasons:
· I’ll have four more months to increase and fortify my written arguments;
· I’ll have four more months to seek allies, spread the word, and try to create backlash against Discover Card which, I have discovered, isn’t beloved by all.
There is a lot of debate as to what the law is and what it isn’t. There are accusations, from time to time, leveled against activist judges who try to create law on their own. My own feeling is: The law is whatever We-the-People decide it should be, pretty much on a case-by-case basis, if We’d so decide. My personal challenge is to raise awareness among We-the-People, telling them we no longer have to tolerate credit card companies abusing us or usurious interest rates.
That’ll take some doing, since people have been cowed into submission for so long. But I believe there’s still some fight left in us. My basic argument boils down to a process of elimination:
If our [Black] President won’t lift a finger against usury or in support of Reparations;
If our Congress has been bought out by special interest groups who want to maintain the status quo;
If issues before courts are so often decided by 5-4 ideologically-driven majorities rather than by consensus arrived at by logical argumentation;
If there are no institutional forces within our country to redress the wrongs wrought by the Slave Trade and ensuing institutionalized discrimination;
If no one else is left standing to say, “Let’s do the right thing;”
Then it’s up to one man who sees what’s right and is willing to take a stand.
And if that one man can’t get a fair hearing based on the merits of his case, then who will be to blame for a ripple effect which seeks to overthrow an unfair and unresponsive system? You know the old saying about the straw that broke the camel’s back.
It would be too easy for a court of law to rule against me on narrow grounds by claiming the issues I raise are “political” and are therefore best addressed by legislators. I intend to argue that it’s quite alright for courts to be “political” if that means the interests of justice are being served. Especially, since the state and federal legislatures aren’t being “political” enough (though that’s their job) and are, instead, being evasive.
I would love for a judge to rule in my favor, just for the hell of it, even if that judge didn’t necessarily buy my arguments. [Why not? I’m sure this happens, since judges aren’t penalized for “incorrect” decisions.] This would force my opponent (Discover Card) to decide if they’d like to appeal. Right now, as things stand, mine isn’t a class action lawsuit. In fact, I’m the one being sued. However, an appeal presents several risks:
· The risk of blowback against the corporate bottom line from negative publicity;
· The risk that well-heeled organizations or individuals might publicize this cause or actively ally themselves with it;
· The risk that other debtors might get uppity and decide to follow in my footsteps or perhaps even become politically active against the Big Financials;
· The risk that Discover Card might actually lose on appeal – sometimes it’s better to cut one’s losses than to pursue further legal action.
Miscellanea from my earlier blog…
Contrary to my last blog, Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. (a Black man) was not present in my courtroom. Instead, a white woman named Sheryl A. Pethers was on the bench.
None of us were asked to rise when the judge entered the courtroom, so I didn’t have to risk remaining seated.
Yes, the words “In God We Trust” decorated one of the courtroom’s walls. And I was prepared to ask the judge for permission to tape my sign (bearing one word: Buddha) over the word God. I had even stopped in Walgreen’s on the way to court to buy a tape dispenser for this purpose. But I thought better of it. I saw I’d have to stand on furniture to do this, which would give the judge a reason to say “no.” But I thought it would be too distractive to the main reason I was there.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“[Sigh] It’s hard to decide which battles to pick; I want to fight them all. Which is a lot more than I can say for our current President.”
No comments:
Post a Comment