Judge Wygonik Tells Arab Thought Cops, 'Case Dismissed'

Judge Wygonik, whose travails we noted in October, (“Dearborn Judge Runs Afoul of Thought Police”), has finally realized that negotiation has its limits. Not that he’s declaring war on Imad Hamad and Osama Siblani. He’s just saying, “so long.”

Hamad and Siblani are the two most prominent loudmouths in the Coalition of Arab American Organizations (CAAO), the gang that’s been persecuting Wygonik since July, demanding some suitable public penance from him for being insufficiently sensitive to Muslim feelings in his private conversations.

As Wygonik explains in his statement, (below), he’s met repeatedly with these guys, offering to issue a joint statement to clear the air. But CAAO preferred to remain offended. On Monday Wygonik issued a press release through his attorney saying he’s done talking to the CAAO, and he’s moving on.

Maybe Siblani, Hamad, and company stayed stubborn in hopes of breaking Wygonik down, Dog Whisperer-style, in hopes that he would accept the collar and leash. Who wants to settle for a fair judge when a terrified political lapdog on the bench is so much more useful?

Or maybe they only wanted to make a harsh example of him for the benefit of any other Dearborn officials who might get silly notions about speaking or thinking freely around this town.

Either way, Wygonik went above and beyond in his effort to smooth the waters. Now Wygonik is showing up his persecutors as the ones who aren’t serious about smoothing anything. (Dearborn Heights City Councilman Tom Berry doesn't come out looking so good, either).

I’m sure Wygonik will pay for this by losing re-election next time around. But he stood for principle, and refused to dhimmi his way out of it, for which we tip our cap to him.

* * *

For Immediate Release
Contact: Noel Saleh
Monday, December 1, 2008
(313) 967-0200

District Judge Richard Wygonik issues final statement on e-mail accusations

At a July fundraiser for Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, I had a conversation with Dearborn Heights City Councilman Tom Berry, during which we discussed Talal Chahine, the former owner ofthe La Shish restaurant chain and current fugitive from justice.

I was pointed in my criticism of Chahine, whose irresponsible actions harmed our community and resulted in hundreds of local workers losing their jobs. After a lively discussion, Berry and I shook hands and parted ways.

The following day, it was brought to my attention that Councilman Berry had sent out an email claiming that both I and my wife made disparaging comments, not toward Chahine, but toward Dearborn’s entire Arab community and toward Fordson High School.

Despite (1) my long-standing ties to Dearborn’s Arab community, (2) the fact that I have a reputation of being fair and unbiased as both a judge and in private practice, (3) the fact that I am a graduate of Fordson High School, and (4) my continued assertion that my remarks about Talal Chahine were not in any way an indictment of an entire community, some people have been demanding an apology (for something I never said).

Since the email, I have issued three statements about that evening’s conversation. I have had my representative, respected local attorney Noel Saleh, meet with the Coalition of Arab American Organizations (CAAO) on two occasions. I have personally met with CAAO as a group on one occasion. I have also met with several of its members on an individual basis.

I offered to issue a joint statement with CAAO to clarify what was said and to reach a resolution of this email attack. Since our meeting, I have, in good faith, produced several drafts of a joint statement based upon what was said at our face to face meetings with CAAO representatives and during our conversations, only to have those joint statements rejected.

I have always believed that the CAAO is working for the betterment of our community. I support the organization, I respect its members, and I appreciate the support I have received from the organization and its members. However, the leaders who are speaking for the CAAO have prevented me from reaching a resolution by a joint statement. I am convinced, that after weeks of trying to issue a joint statement, there is no truthful statement I can make that will satisfy some ofthe leaders of the CAAO.

I appreciate the efforts of those members of the community who have devoted a significant amount of time and energy to trying to resolve the issue of this email, but I believe I have done all I can do, and it is time for me to put this email behind me and to continue to prove to the voters of Dearborn that, as my record shows, I am a fair judge, not affected by racial or ethnic bias in any way. I will continue to serve all the citizens of Dearborn with dedication.
# # #
Not Printed At Taxpayer Expense

Dearborn Judge Runs Afoul of Thought Police

According to the Dearborn Press & Guide, Dearborn's Arab leaders still haven't got their full pound of flesh from Judge Richard Wygonik. ("Arab-American leaders reject 2nd Wygonik statement").

It seems that sides still cannot reach a compromise, as, for the second time in as many months, Arab-American leaders rejected a letter submitted to them by 19th District Court Judge Richard Wygonik on Sept. 18 addressing alleged offensive remarks he made during a July conversation with Dearborn Heights Councilman Tom Berry.

After meeting with a subcommittee representing the Congress of Arab American Organizations (CAAO) in August, Wygonik and his attorney, Noel Saleh, agreed to draft a statement acknowledging having caused a "misunderstanding" without admitting to having made all of the comments, which were allegedly made during a fundraiser for current Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.

A first draft submitted in August was rejected by the CAAO subgroup, which said it didn't include a "straightforward apology," according to American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) Regional Director Imad Hamad, and went on at too much length about Wygonik's record of fair treatment in the courtroom — which, Hamad said, was never an issue.

"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reach an agreement as of yet," Saleh said. "We're trying to find the proper solution, but we're having a hard time with that."

Wygonik and his wife, Adrenne, were at the fundraiser, and thought they were having a private conversation that included Tom Berry. According to the email that Berry sent around later, he describes "the judge's wife Adrenne Wygonik as having said, 'Arab parents don't know how to raise kids, letting them run around, starting trouble everywhere they go.' He said the judge agreed, saying 'Yeah, especially those from Salina and Fordson.'"

Wygonik also defined Talal Chahine as a "crook, Arab terrorist." Wygonik has refused to apologize for this statement, "because he is a criminal and the judge shouldn't have to apologize for that," according to his attorney, Noel Saleh.

Hamad's statement that Wygonik's treatment toward Arab-Americans in the courtroom "was never an issue" was directly contradicted by fellow subcommittee member Kalid Shajrah, who said in August "that a judge whom Arab Americans appear in front of every day may have such hidden biases, is disturbing and needs to be addressed."

In fact, Hamad's latest comments on Wygonik's courtroom demeanor directly contradicts Hamad's own statements in July, when he said this:

"It's not about debating the legal issues of Talal Chahine, it's about the nature of the offensive and very biased remarks about the entire community and being very specific about the two schools," he said.

"We have great concern because it's coming from a court judge. Many of those who appear or practice before him are Arab American. If these allegations are true, what is the plight of the people appearing in his court?"

There's either an issue of Wygonik having a record of bias towards Arab Americans in his court or there's not. Since Hamad's more recent statements backpedal from his earlier one rasing alarms about how Arab Americans are treated in 19th District Court, and Hamad is now now claiming that Wygonik's courtroom treatment is "not an issue," I'm inclined to think Hamad and fellow subcommittee member Osama Siblani were unable to turn up any evidence of bias in Wygonik's courtroom.

So if, as Hamad says, Wygonik's "record of fair treatment in the courtroom. . . was never an issue," then why is Wygonik being persecuted? For expressing his private opinions during what the Press & Guide reported to be "a private conversation"? Even if Wygonik, as a member of the species homo sapiens, has some private prejudices, if he keeps them out of his courtroom, where's the problem?

Hamad refused to discuss the alleged comments by Wygonik with the Press & Guide on Monday, only adding "that the issue was addressed yesterday during a meeting at the Lebanese-American Heritage Club. 'We don't want to open up another discussion because that wouldn't help in the attempt to resolve this issue,' Hamad said. 'We just want to move forward.'"

So now, even what Wygonik actually ever said is no longer the issue.

Then it's not about Chahine, not about any professional wrongdoing by Wygonik on the bench, and it's not about what he may--or may not--have said in a private conversation.

Then what is the issue? And what does it mean to "move forward"?