Reparations Case goes to Court: Part II

Yesterday, I made a promise: That I’d post more from my written response to the court.

RECAP from yesterday’s posting: “My trial is set for Nov. 23, 2010. I must surely be the first person to be brought before a judge for being a Black Reparationist (uh by the way, I’m white).”

From my Written Statement to the Court

The following material is gleaned directly from my 15-page written argument I’d submitted to the court last week. Enjoy!

QUOTE:

Now comes Defendant, STEVEN D SEARLE … acting in his own defense without consultation with legal counsel. SEARLE invokes his right of reasonable expectation implied by the US Constitution’s Amendment 9, which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The term cited above – reasonable expectation – is of my own coinage, expressing this sentiment: Though I have not engaged legal counsel and have no legal training, I cite the duty of this Court to make allowance for any imprecision in the following written expression of my case; that the gist of my arguments be considered though they may fail any test of rigid formality. Since this Court is allowing me to present my own case without legal counsel, it must logically follow that I have a reasonable expectation that the merits of my case (no matter how awkwardly presented) will receive a full and impartial consideration.

Second Motion to Dismiss: SEARLE hereby moves that this case be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant proposes that this case be heard, instead, in a federal court since there are US Constitutional issues involved, sketched below, which are beyond the scope of a Circuit Court of Cook County to hear. It would be in Plaintiff’s favor for SEARLE’s case to be heard in a local-rather-than Federal Court. Plaintiff would benefit by having this issue narrowly defined as being simply a matter of violation of a business contract. Defendant will demonstrate this to be an unfair advantage, and that the issues involved require the greatest possible scrutiny both as to breadth and depth.

The concept of diversity jurisdiction is relevant here, to quote from Wikipedia:

“In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court … has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are ‘diverse’ in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens. (Corporations, as legal persons, may also be included).”

Since Discover Bank, as a legal person, is in effect a citizen of the State of Delaware and SEARLE is a citizen of the State of Illinois, Defendant therefore moves to dismiss this case from Cook County Circuit so it may properly be heard, should Plaintiff decide to pursue this option, in a US federal district court.

TWO: From Plaintiff’s VERIFIED COMPLAINT: “4. By use of the account, the Defendant became bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Cardmember Agreement.” SEARLE notes that he is not obligated to be bound by ONLY “the terms and conditions” in this Agreement. He did not waive any other rights he has as a citizen.

SIX:  Discover Bank embraces certain “values” on its website, which SEARLE maintains form a binding contract with cardmembers. Those values form an acronym of the corporate name (Discover) as follows, with commentary:

D – “Do the right thing” – So SEARLE urges Discover Bank to do exactly that by making reparations payments, even though Discover’s victims don’t have recognized recourse to any formal method “to be made whole” by any currently existing legal or administrative mechanism.

I – “Innovation” – This corporate citizen of the State of Delaware couldn’t be more innovative than to embrace its moral responsibility to pay reparations. Or, as an alternative, to allow its cardmembers to make those payments on its behalf. Besides, it would be good business, in terms of improved public relations among those who perceive corporate financiers as predatory.

S – “Simplicity” – There is a great simplicity in these words, which in fact mask a far deeper concept: “What goes around comes around.” Discover Bank might feel assured to know that its reparations obligations aren’t “legally enforceable” (as of this writing). However, SEARLE invokes the concept of karma, by means of comparison to Nazi Germany. Modern Germans may well feel comfortably far-removed from the horrors of the Holocaust, especially as that era recedes ever farther into the past. Modern Germans might choose to exercise their option to ignore reparations arguments, especially due to Germany’s bitter experience with post-World War I reparations mandates. If modern Germany refuses to accelerate its efforts to mitigate the damage of the Holocaust, its posterity will be doomed to suffer in ways they will not understand or deem “fair.” Discover Bank has a similar karmic obligation, since its current wealth is due in appreciable part to the benefits of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

C – “Collaboration” – SEARLE invites Discover Bank to collaborate with minority communities, as well as Black African nations, for input on how to “do the right thing” in order to right past wrongs. Defendant notes the lack of collaboration displayed by Discover Bank toward cardmembers: We were not asked for any input as the terms of the Cardmember Agreement were being prepared.

O – “Openness” – SEARLE invites Discover Bank to consider an option which (only) appears to work against its corporate self-interest: Lobby for and support efforts to create the openness which would ensue from dismantling the monopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties, which only enforces conditions most favorable to business and least favorable to consumers.

V – “Volunteerism” – On its website, Discover claims it “believes in being a good corporate citizen” but goes on to add, “particularly in communities where our employees live and work. We are committed to supporting the many volunteer efforts of our employees…” Why support volunteer efforts “particularly” in those communities? Discover’s volunteer efforts are most urgently needed to help “make whole” those communities and people who were negatively impacted by the past exploitative business practices of Discover in particular and of the US financial community in general, of which Discover is a leading player. Indeed, there is a cynical attitude of exploitation of its own employees which inspires Discover seek favorable corporate PR by pressuring its employees to “volunteer.”

E – “Enthusiasm” – Discover should enthusiastically embrace not only the Reparations Movement but also any campaigns to reverse the damage the Two Party system continues to inflict on our daily lives. Discover’s “enthusiasm” must not be limited only to increasing its profitability and market share, and not only to a shallow, smiley-face version of customer service.

R – “Respect” – Discover should show as much respect for its moral obligations as it does for those found in its business contracts.

            SEVEN:  SEARLE cites the importance of the following article by Naomi Klein, which appeared in the September 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

Minority Death Match: Jews, Blacks, and the “Post-Racial” Presidency

Klein documents that the, “United States, under the leadership of its first African-American president, had announced that it would boycott the United Nations Durban Review Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance [which started on April 20, 2009], citing its alleged anti-Israel bias.”

If a Black US President refuses to address the issue of reparations, SEARLE is justified in citing a US Constitutional Amendment Nine right to take drastic action. When traditional institutions for redress of grievance engage in a conspiracy of denial and obstruction of justice, drastic action is not only a right but becomes a necessity.

NINE:  SEARLE (again) cites US Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 [June 11, 2009], which states:

QUOTE:

…the legislatures of …Virginia….Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina have taken the lead in adopting resolutions officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery…

:UNQUOTE.

SEARLE observes:

This “appropriate remorse” was most assuredly a “words only” apology. However, truly “appropriate remorse” must be “expressed” by means greater than a merely linguistic apology. Without efforts to “make whole” (that is, for example, by means of reparations payments), no apology could be said to be “appropriate.”

TEN:  SEARLE (for yet a third time) cites US Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 [June 11, 2009], which states:

QUOTE:

DISCLAIMER. – Nothing in this resolution –

(A)  authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or

(B)  serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.

:UNQUOTE.

In the case of (A):  Isn’t this similar to a man admitting he committed murder, but also claiming that his admission can’t be used against him? The Resolution admits to US participation in a [de facto] crime against humanity, therefore any reasonable man would surely see that this Resolution in fact does support such a “claim against the United States.”

In the case of (B):  Since “nothing in the resolution…(B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States,” the Resolution itself (which expresses the “sense of Congress) is in effect saying such “claims” haven’t been settled – at least as far as the Resolution itself is concerned. This claim in (B) actually keeps alive the possibility of introducing future and advancing present claims against the United States based on exploitations of Black Americans.

In the case of (A) and (B): Though the Congress most assuredly did not intend this disclaimer to follow SEARLE’s interpretation, Defendant maintains: “That’s what the words say, and I invoke a Ninth Amendment right of reasonable expectation that my legislators say what they mean and mean what they say.”

ELEVEN:  Concerning usury: Defendant is aware that credit card companies enjoy virtual immunity from prosecution for usury. This immunity was granted by a series of US Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha. This immunity was abetted by a US Congress which increasingly, in the name of deregulation, was not inclined to prevent the financial sector from running amok. Apparently, the US Congress is far more profoundly influenced by the lobbying money and efforts of creditors than by so-called “constituents” who think they can make their influence felt by casting ballots at the polling place.

TWELVE:   Concerning usury:  How is it that Discover Bank is allowed to charge me 24% interest for cash advances, though I can earn (only) far less than 5% on a passbook savings account? Industry advocates will claim, “That’s what the market will bear.” However, the industry is well poised to unfairly influence that market due to the presence of a limited number of large, collusive, and monopolizing competitors, and the presence of a Congress that listens only to industry lobbyists.

THIRTEEN:  Concerning usury:  How is it that a country, which in many (including several unconstitutional*) ways embraces its Judeo-Christian heritage, has come to actually embrace usury? How is it that no church in the United States speaks out by saying, “The commandment ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’ must surely apply to a Congress and financial lobbyists who effectively collude to deny We-the-People any voice in setting standards against exorbitant levels of interest?”

      *  “several unconstitutional ways” – 1) US currency bears the inscription “In God We Trust,” 2) the Pledge of Allegiance offers “one nation, under God,” and 3) the current oath sworn by persons about to become naturalized US citizens ends with these words, “so help me God.”

FOURTEEN:  Motion to Consider my Personal Financial Status:

I hereby submit this Motion to Consider in the event of any decision made by this Court against me. I am not a lawyer and do not know what this Court may or may not take under consideration should it decide to garnish my wage or in other ways make judgment against me. If, however, this Court is not required to consider any details of my personal financial status [see FIFTEEN below], in that case, be it understood that I, here and now, register an objection under the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “…nor shall any state deprive any person of …property, without due process of law…” Defendant maintains that “due process” must include consideration of personal circumstances. If not, then this type of judicial “process” devolves into nothing more than a rubberstamping approval of Plaintiff’s request for compensation.

SIXTEEN:  Obligations, Contracts, and Justice under the US Constitution:

REF 1: US Constitution, Preamble:  “We the People…in order to … establish Justice…do ordain and establish this Constitution…”

REF 2: US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No State shall…pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”

REF 3: US Constitution, Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

We-the-People are far more interested in “establish[ing] Justice [for all],” than would be any special commercial interest. For that reason, We have a right (of reasonable expectation, under Amendment 9) to insist on a broader interpretation of Article I, Section 10 than conventionally exists. Therefore, REF 2 (above) should be restated as:

“No State shall…pass any Law impairing any Obligations, be these of the type embodied in business contracts or of a type encompassing the dictates of morals, ethics, or justice.”

SEVENTEEN:  Amendment 10 Considerations:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”

            One of these “powers” must be a reasonable power over our own lives, which shall not be encroached upon by institutions which are becoming increasingly out of touch with the people, which have and continue to demonstrate a tendency to centralize and increase their authority without the expressed consent of the governed.

            SEARLE hereby serves notice that another of these “powers of the people” is the power (not merely the right) to abolish the US Constitution and replace it with another, should We-the-People so decide. If legal arguments based on the Constitution should continue to fall on the deaf ears of those institutions empowered by that same Constitution, then it is time to replace that authority and, by direct consequence, those institutions. The power of the people follows from the Preamble to the current US Constitution:

“We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

If the People of the year 1776 had the power to “establish this Constitution” (which, it will be remembered, replaced the prior constitution referred to as the Articles of Confederation), how can the People of the year 2010 have any less power to “establish [their own] Constitution?”

Much is made out of the Constitutionally-provided methods of amendment, but I am not talking about amending, I’m talking about replacing. Using the language of Amendment 10 as a reference, replacing the Constitution is not a power “delegated to the United States,” nor is it a power “prohibited by it to the States.” Therefore, constitutional replacement logically becomes a power “reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”

Replacement would become a vital necessity, in the case of a future proposed constitution which would dissolve the US Senate, an institution the current Constitution enshrines forever by disallowing even the process of Constitutional amendment to alter or abolish. However, the sense of the Preamble precludes us from concluding that the Founding Fathers wished to impose their will upon future generations that there now and forever be a US Senate. It is doubtful any generation of enlightened leaders could be taken seriously if it were to decree that the will of the dead should be imposed upon the will of the living, now and forever.

EIGHTEEN:  Constitutional Replacement: This is no idle threat, even though doubters will ask, “How can the Constitution be replaced, since there is no legal mechanism in place to allow for this by peaceful means. And violent means are out of the question, for the establishment has the means of overwhelming and violent repression at its disposal?”

The response by We-the-People would be direct. They would simply use the power of economic boycott, particularly in refusing to do business with or deposit their money in the seven largest US banks. No gun-based violence would be necessary. It wouldn’t take too long for the financiers, who have had it their way much too long, to cry “uncle.” Then a nationwide Constitutional Convention could be established, though the boycott would be resumed if there were to arise any hint of corruption in its bylaws or undermining of its purpose.

SEARLE’s purpose in detailing these arguments: “If there are those who have become comfortable and routine in their abuse of power simply because the current law of the land allows it, or is interpreted or corrupted to allow it, that basis of law can be effectively challenged.

TWENTY-THREE:  Words of caution:

As a Buddhist, I feel obliged to direct these words of caution to the Court, to client Discover Bank, to Weltman et al, and to anyone connected with this case down to and including the courtroom bailiff. In the context of the following quotes from the Lotus Sutra, I am a person “who accepts and upholds this [Lotus Sutra],” who is a “preacher of the Law,” and who “reads, recites and embraces this Lotus Sutra.” Anyone involved in this case should ponder these three quotes carefully before making any final decision on how to interact with me:

QUOTE ONE: If anyone sees a person who accepts and upholds this [Lotus Sutra] and tries to expose the faults or evils of that person, whether what he speaks is true or not, he will in his present existence be afflicted ... then in existence after existence …His body will have a foul odor, with evil sores that run pus and blood, and he will suffer from water in the belly, shortness of breath, and other severe and malignant illnesses.

QUOTE TWO: Then in the presence of the Buddha they spoke in verse form, saying: If there are those who …trouble and disrupt the preachers of the Law, their heads will split into seven pieces like the branches of the arjaka tree.

QUOTE THREE: If for the space of a kalpa one should constantly harbor a mind destitute of good and with angry looks should revile the Buddha, he will be committing an offense of immeasurable gravity. But if toward those who read, recite and embrace this Lotus Sutra one should even for a moment direct evil words, his offense will be even greater.

:UNQUOTE

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Though any conventional standard of evaluation should dictate that I lose this case, what I hope to gain will (though unconventional) be of far greater impact.”