Judge Dismisses Slave Reparation Case (Chicago)

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 1-26-2004 | Mike Robinson

[blam]

Judge Dismisses Slave Reparation Case

Monday January 26, 2004 6:01 PM

By MIKE ROBINSON

Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) - A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves against corporations they say profited from slavery, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted.

The court still left the door open for further litigation.

``Plaintiffs' attempt to bring these claims more than a century after the end of the Civil War and the formal abolition of slavery fails,'' U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle said.

He said the plaintiffs' claims ``are beyond the constitutional authority of this court.'' And he said the suit alleged no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the companies named as defendants.

But the ruling dismissed the case ``without prejudice,'' meaning the slave descendants seeking reparations from U.S. companies are allowed to file an amended complaint.

Lionel Jean-Baptiste, a lawyer representing two women who are descendants of slaves, said he expected to do exactly that.

``I had an expectation that this would happen,'' Jean-Baptiste said after Norgle released his 75-page opinion.

The lawsuit was first filed in U.S. District Court in New York in 2002 and later moved to Chicago. The suit names companies like the Lehman Brothers brokerage firm, Aetna Insurance and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, saying they or their corporate ancestors made money off slavery. Lawsuits filed around the country seeking reparations for slavery have been combined into a single court action.

In his opinion, Norgle acknowledged ``the historic injustices and the immorality of the institution of human chattel slavery in the United States.''

But he said longstanding doctrine in matters involving political questions ``bars the court from deciding the issue of slavery reparations, an issue that has been historically and constitutionally committed to the legislative and executive branches of our government.''

As for the timing, he said the plaintiffs had failed to show how the wrongs cited in the lawsuit fall within the statute of limitations.

``Some may view this ruling as a condonation of ancient wrongs,'' Norgle said. ``That view is wrong. To suggest that the lions have won again and that the court is impervious to the human suffering at the core of this case would be absurd.''

Jean-Baptiste had said that if the plaintiffs won their lawsuit, they would set up a trust fund to help the black community support social programs.

[longtermmemmory]

The "without prejudice" is standard procedure. Cases are dismissed, amended and refiled on a routine bases all the time. There is nothing surprising there. By the 4th or 5th time in may be dismissed with prejudice.

They had better change it significantly if the want the next dismissal to be without prejudice.

[End Times Sentinel]

In a related story, Nike and Seagram's stock plummeted today.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

In a related story, Nike and Seagram's stock plummeted today.

[lilylangtree]

I wanna sue because my relatives left England in the 1600's because of religious persecution.

[OXENinFLA]

Oh Pleeeeeeeeeeease tell me the Judge was Black.

[longtermmemmory]

If the best spin that AP could put on this is the "without prejuice" BS then the plaintiffs must have had their posteriors handed to them.

[Hollywoodghost]

Wasn't slavery Legal at the time? It was only illegal in the south after the emancipation Proc. in 1863. That would mean that slavery was only illegal for two years. Immoral yes, illegal no. We can not punish on ex-post facto cases.
People who had relations die when abortion was illegal could now sue hospitals. Native people could sue all over the place to re-dress past wrongs. People who had "Indian Fighters" as relatives should be forced to pay for the sins of thier forefathers. It bobbles the mind what sort of problems this ruling could start.

[Congressman Billybob]

This sloppy description of the dismissal of this case parallels how I said, here on FR, that it would be thrown out, when the case was first filed. The article never uses the word "latches," which is Norman French for "delay." However, I bet a dollar to a doughnut that the trial court used that word.

The article does use the phrase, "atatute of limitations." What this means, in plain English, is this: If any Plaintiff in any case -- regardless of subject -- WAITS TOO LONG to file his case, it will be rejected for that reason alone. And since the US Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal of a Japanese-American claim forty years after WW II ended, it is self-evident that a delay of more than a century is too much.

Such dismissals have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Such dismissals assume that the case might have had merit if brought in a timely matter, but throw the case out on the grounds of latches, or delay.

Does that make since?

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread).

[End Times Sentinel]

Well, where do you stand on my reparations case for the slaves taken from my ancestors without compensation?

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

Well, where do you stand on my reparations case for the slaves taken from my ancestors without compensation?

[blam]

"Does that make since?"

Yup, makes sense.

[tinacart]

"No justice, no peace!" (sarcasm off now)

[jpl]

I want to sue Spike Lee because he called Italians "dagos" in his movie and really hurt my feelings.

[Pietro]

"Jean-Baptiste had said that if the plaintiffs won their lawsuit, they would set up a trust fund to help the black community support social programs."

How many more "social programs" can the black community endure before it becomes totally, completely and utterly disfunctional?

All they need is one more Jesse Sharpon to push them into the abyss.

[You Dirty Rats]

Since and atatute!

Who is this Judeg that dismissed the case?

Legal terms baffle me.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Well, Andy, weese jus got ta get us a new scam."

[Agnes Heep]

And since the US Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal of a Japanese-American claim forty years after WW II ended, it is self-evident that a delay of more than a century is too much.

Back in my college days I earned money preparing old federal court cases for electronic storage and retrieval. Among the hundreds of old cases I typed the term "laches" was frequently to be found, and very often applied. Basically, if you've got a grievance, you'd better act on it withiin a reasonable period of time. You can't simply hoard your wrongs and call them in when the time is propitious.

[blam]

"Who is this Judeg that dismissed the case?

LOL, funny guy.

[longtermmemmory]

Do European nations get to sue turkey for reparations on the otttoman empire?

The issue itself is dead.

The statute of limitations has run.

The doctrine of laches (common law statute of limitations) has run.

To refile they have to come up with a whole new theory.

This is one leftist issue dead its time to "moveon".

[sweetliberty]

Occasionally justice is done.

[You Dirty Rats]

Seriesly, Congressman, what good will a reliance on the "atatute of limitations" do when SCONJ ditched the atatutory requirements for changing Senate candidates? Some Federal Judge (or eventually Justice Sandra Dee O'Connor) might rule that as series as the atatute of limitations might be, we can't allow that to prevent social justice for African-Americans.

The fact that a case has no legal merit is but a minor speed bump to some activist judges and justices. The amount of money involved in these cases for the plaintiff's attorneys and their clients is hugh!