In Defense of the Luck O’Cup Barista

I’m in class. We study a case of an employee who has made a ruckus of sorts at a coffee shop… The shop is called Luck O’Cup or something like that. It’s a quaint shop serving the upper-middle class. One of the employees instigated a fight or maybe he demanded better pay. The fight created a loss of revenue; even a bus boy was fired due to the financial loses. I have an unconscious understanding that this person is me, though this is not conscious to my dream self.

Anyway this is what we are studying in class.

Class is over and, for real, a case is called on this guy and I’m selected to be one of his defense lawyers. I’m bitter about this. I’m not a lawyer and I can’t make rhyme or reason about the case. Every defense I can think of seems a fabrication; on the other hand, the fellow seems innocent to me. That is, no laws were broken, he just was involved in an argument — an incident where he became angry and which happened to have some fallout.

The judge, a refined black man, discusses the case. As he does, he is panned by the prosecuting attorneys for being upper class and on the side of the shop. I’m dressed in a burnt brown suit; then, I notice the judge is wearing green. He mentions the store’s name… something clever like Luck O’Coffee… I realize everyone is wearing green, including me.

The prosecution begins to lay out there case. Like I said, I’m very uncomfortable because I can’t make heads or tails of any legal position. Everything seems made up. I think hard for some kind of argument. Then, I check back in my paper I did for class. I believe that the main thought train of the paper could fit into a substantive argument; it’s hard to say; it’s the closest thing I have to a genuine position and I’m going to have to defend a real man for his freedom.