It is a shame when the court of public opinion turns upon and unfairly passes judgement on our fellow man, as was the case a few years ago with my prospective client and St. Louis Cardinal star outfielder Rick Ankiel. It is even a greater shame when these missed opportunities force the shuttering of such a promising law firm as I helped co-found with Hammersmith, Grinchfibbins, & Loller, LLC. But these sorts of shame pale in comparison to the shame that I feel for our species as a whole when a professional organization with more money and fame that anyone can dare imagine goes out of its way to discriminate against a man literally because of the clothes on his back.

I speak, of course, about the tribulations that young Reed Frazier, a student at St. John’s University, experienced at the new home of the New York Mets, Citi Field. Frazier, a camera operator for St. John’s Office of Athletic Communications, was working the stadium’s inaugural game, a baseball match between St. John’s and Georgetown. Because of the inclement weather, it was recommended that all OAC personnel wear some sort of jacket. Frazier chose to wear his league-sanctioned Philadelphia Phillies jacket. The Phillies, of course, were the team that have noticably overtaken the New York Mets these past two baseball campaigns in the race for a playoff seed. Frazier’s gesture was a brazen and laudatory show of fandom. It also ufortunately proved to be a bone of contention that many at the park, including co-workers and his supervisor, found hard to swallow. Eventually, Frazier was given an ultimatum most likely by the Mets via his OAC supervisor: take off the jacket or leave the stadium. As any good American should, Frazier stood by his principles, and and a result suffered for his upstanding moral fiber.

Where do I begin? First of all, this is clearly a Freedom of Speech issue compounded by shows of extreme prejudice. This is something we in the law professional like to call “double jeopardy.” Mr. Frazier’s right to wear a Phillies jacket while working this game is clearly guaranteed by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And I’m sure, given the time to research these matters, there are some torts or statutes I can unearth that deal with this thorny issue as well. It is an expression of his individuality, and to let this expressionism be thwarted by the petty tyranny of employers and other authority figures that Frazier answers to is, in short, letting the terrorists win. While Frazier’s supervisor had every right to ask Frazier to remove his Phillies jacket, he had no right to expect Frazier to heed that request. Would that all our requests in life were answered so eagerly and readily! We’d be living in a magical fairy land, where women knew how to drive and the elderly could handle automated check-out scanners in the grocery store without professional assistance and “crap” music never existed to corrupt our children.

But to live in a free country, which the United States is on a good day, we have to live with these sorts of inconveniences. That includes people having the right to do and say what they want, which clearly covers not impugning the right of someone to wear a Phillies jacket in the Mets home stadium. This is not an issue of a subordinate ignoring a request from a superior and carrying himself in a seemingly thoughtless and unprofessional manner. This is about the Mets, and their spineless lackeys, forcing an upstanding young man to choose between the envious ideals of his homeland and the short-sighted will of his corporate overlords. And to offer a St. John’s jacket in exchange for removing the offensive apparrel is just the sordid cherry on top of this sundae of unjust turpitude. It is prima facie (translation: “in your face”) proof of the temerity and bulging cojones (translation: “huevos”) possessed by the would-be defendants (or plaintiffs, depending on how you approach this case — I’m a more traditional practitioner of law, but your mileage may vary).

While it pains me to say what I’m about to suggest, given I have many friends that are of different ethnic backgrounds and less fortunate than me, I can’t help but think that the color of Mr. Frazier’s skin played a not-unimportant role in this cat-and-mouse game. Because Mr. Frazier happens to be Caucasian, the powers-that-be at this game felt it was OK to enforce their will upon the hapless co-ed — after all, they were undoubtedly thinking, he’s white, so who cares. But were he of a darker complexion, there is no way they would dare undertake such a gambit, for fear of incurring the wrath of Jesse Jackson or Oprah or Deepak Chopra or some other “alternate lifestyle” standard bearer. Once upon a time, a feared political entity used these same sorts of logistical mindgames and double-standards to oppress a people for their religious beliefs, and nearly laid waste to modern civilization as we know it. And even though the machinations of the Branch Davidians were ended by the courageous actions of our own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, this incident proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their influence still looms large over the American landscape.

Mr. Frazier, with me as your legal counsel, I can guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that I and my associates will try as much as we can to take every person and organization involved in this matter to the cleaners for a good white-washing. Your supervisor, your co-workers, the fans in the stands and around the park that commented on your jacket, the entire staff at Citi Field, The New York Mets, St. John’s University, Georgetown University, Major League Baseball, the NCAA, even former employees of all these supposedly austere institutions — this could be huge, both for your wallet and the United States of America. We could even take this to the Supreme Court, if we get lucky enough or throw out of other courts! Think about this, think about your patriotic duty, and please contact our offices to learn more about our affordable installment payment plan & check garnishment options. Together, we can make this world a better place, both for lawyers and the people they lawyer.

Terrence R. Hammersmith, Esq. is a former Privileged Inner Circle member of the American Lawyers Association of the United States of America, and a junior associate at Gonzalez, Fielding, and Hutz.