The Journal of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America July-September 2017 - 21

sTorIes oF Peacemakers
vecuronium bromide-a pharmaceutical product sold by the
distributor-under false pretenses, in violation of Arkansas
law. The moving party declared in its verified complaint that
it attempted to retrieve the vecuronium bromide after learning
what the Department of Correction had done.
The complaint declared that the Department of Correction had refused all requests to return the vecuronium
bromide after the moving party refunded the purchase price
and provided a pre-paid return mail container. The complaint
also declared that the Department of Correction was planning
to dispose of the vecuronium bromide on April 17, three days
later, unless a TRO was issued.
The issue was plain: whether a party who claimed that
someone else was wrongfully in possession of its property, and
about to dispose of it, was entitled to a court order directing
the other party to preserve the disputed property, and not
dispose of it, until a full hearing could be conducted on the
dispute. Under the facts shown in the verified complaint and
supporting sworn testimony, the moving party was entitled to
the court order, if that moving party was likely to succeed on
its claim under the law that governs ownership of property.
If the moving party was not likely to succeed under property law, it was not entitled to a TRO. If the moving party was
not threatened by imminent and irreparable harm, it was not
entitled to a TRO. A TRO was justified if, and only if, those
two factors were in place.
I understood the facts. I understood the law. Under the
facts shown by the verified complaint and property law, I
concluded that the moving party was entitled to the requested
TRO. My order directed the Department of Correction to
preserve the vecuronium bromide-meaning not to use it or
otherwise dispose of it-until I held the hearing. My court
assistant scheduled the hearing for Tuesday morning, April
18, at 9 a.m., even though I was already scheduled to begin a
two-day non-jury civil trial on that date.
I then attended the good Friday vigil with other members of New Millennium Church. In solidarity with Jesus, the
leader of our religion who was put to death by crucifixion by
the Roman Empire, I lay on a cot as a dead man for an hour
and a half. Other members of New Millennium Church were
present. They led other persons in singing "This Little Light
of Mine" and "Amazing grace," songs long associated with
the religion of Jesus.
But property law is property law, no matter whether one
supports, or is opposed to, capital punishment. My job as a
judge was to apply property law to the facts presented by the
verified complaint and decide whether the medical supplier
was likely to succeed on its property law claim for return of
the vecuronium bromide.
If the medical supplier was not likely to succeed on this
claim, it was not likely to succeed-whether I support, or am
opposed to, capital punishment. If the medical supplier was
likely to succeed, but there was no proof that the vecuronium
bromide was in imminent risk of being disposed of before a
hearing, then there was no reason to issue a TRO-whether

I support, or am opposed to, capital punishment.
And whether the medical supplier was entitled to a TRO or
not, I was entitled to practice my religion on good Friday. I was
entitled to practice my religion if there was no TRO motion.
I was entitled to practice my religion whether I granted the
TRO or not. I was entitled to practice my religion as a follower
of Jesus with other followers of Jesus in front of the Arkansas
governor's Mansion.

"People have strong views about capital
punishment. I know that. I have strong
views about capital punishment also.
But none of our views about capital
punishment, whatever they may be and
however strongly we may hold them,
affect the facts in the TRO motion I
reviewed and decided on Good Friday."
So, because I am a follower of Jesus and a citizen of the
United States and Arkansas, I portrayed a dead person-the
Jesus who was crucified by the Roman Empire on what we
call good Friday-by lying motionless on a cot in front of the
Arkansas governor's Mansion. The hat shown in photographs
of my prone figure covered a black leather-bound King James
Version of the Bible, the book that my parents taught me to
read and love as a child.
Whether I attended the good Friday vigil or not does not
change property law. Whether anyone approves or disapproves
of me attending the good Friday vigil does not change property
law. Whether I support or am opposed to capital punishment
does not change property law. I am entitled to practice my religion-whether I am a judge or not-even if others disapprove
of the way I practice it.
There is nothing improper about applying the law to
facts. That is what judges are supposed to do. There is nothing improper about applying the law to facts in cases where
people have strong feelings. That is what judges are supposed
to do. There is nothing improper about judges, who support
or oppose capital punishment, hearing and deciding cases
involving property law disputes about the right to ownership
of drugs used for capital punishment. Property disputes about
ownership of drug products are property disputes, not decisions
about the morality of capital punishment, the method by which
persons who have been convicted of capital murder are put
to death, or whether doing so violates the Constitution of the
United States.
Please see "Reason Together" on page 25

Baptist Peacemaker

jul-sep 2017 21

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America July-September 2017