Monday, December 06, 2010

D.C. Court of Appeals: Oral Argument -- December 16, 1997 -- Variation

One could offer the following variation on the District's oral argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights.  The following observation highlights the invidious transformation of an aggressive and irrational proposition into an objective "admission" by the victim that the proposition is nonaggressive and rational.

A1.  Akin Gump employee states that a coworker said to him: "We're all afraid of you.  We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in, and shoot everybody."

A2. D.C. Corporation Counsel to the D.C. Court of Appeals: Mr. Freedman admitted that his coworkers were afraid of him.

B1.  Victim of anti-Semitism states that someone said to him:  "We're all afraid of you.  We're all afraid you're going to buy some lumber, nails and a hammer, build a cross then crucify us."

B2.  D.C. Corporation Counsel to the D.C. Court of Appeals:  Mr. Freedman admitted that his coworkers were afraid of him.

The above illustrates the invidious transmutation of an aggressive and irrational statement into an "admission" that the statement is nonaggressive and rational.  In my opinion, to engage in such semantic games amounts to a fraud on the court.

1 comment:

Gary Freedman said...

What does it mean that the U.S. Marshal went out of its way to defend the D.C. Corporation Counsel? What does it mean that the U.S. Marshal tried to intimidate me not to publish posts on this blog that highlighted the disturbing behavior of the D.C. Government and Akin Gump?

You tell me.