Commerce Trials: Democracy(?)

[Abishai100]

After the Taliban destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11 (2001), the world began to reorient its thinking regarding the 'shape' of anti-capitalism fervor/sentiment around the globe. How should we evaluate 'Wall Street consciousness' in this new age of commerce-driven political conscience (e.g., 'TrumpUSA')?

This little 'courtroom script' was inspired by the legalese-doctrine film A Man for All Seasons.

The age of media seems to demand more 'interactive commentary' (e.g., Al Jazeera).

Cheers,




====

LAWYER: Do you believe capitalism is a gamble?
DEFENDANT: I think Wall Street requires risk-consciousness.

LAWYER: Did you consciously seek insider-advantages?
DEFENDANT: I tried my hand at normal stock-investing first!

LAWYER: What is 'normal' stock-investing?
DEFENDANT: Standard routes to research...

LAWYER: You found an eco-pollution scandal which compelled you.
DEFENDANT: I wanted an insider-advantage to nail a company.

LAWYER: This company was polluting the Hudson River?
DEFENDANT: That is my claim to innocence...

LAWYER: Insider-trading is deemed detrimental to capitalism.
DEFENDANT: Capitalism is a negotiation, and we have to be 'vigilantes.'

LAWYER: If we 'pardon' your offense, consider how many others we'd have to pardon!
DEFENDANT: My case is special; it's a vigilantism-case...

LAWYER: Vigilantism is not condoned officially!
DEFENDANT: I understand that, but my intentions were to promote justice.

LAWYER: You believe your 'methods' did not 'pervert' Wall Street?
DEFENDANT: Correct.

LAWYER: How does this case illuminate the values of the Trump Administration?
DEFENDANT: Capitalism governance requires subjective creativity.

LAWYER: Should we compare you to Portia from The Merchant of Venice?
DEFENDANT: I'd rather be compared to Edmond Dantes (The Count of Monte Cristo).

LAWYER: We will consider your case carefully, since Wall Street is 'tenable.'
DEFENDANT: My case represents a global perspective on modern ethics.

====