| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tells reparation claimants to go bugger off |
| 2006-12-14 |
| A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected most claims by slave descendants that they deserve reparations from some of the nation's biggest insurers, banks and transportation companies. The three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that slave descendants have no standing to sue for reparations based on injustices suffered by ancestors and that the statute of limitations ran out more than a century ago. But the panel did keep alive a smaller portion of the suit, claiming that major U.S. corporations may be guilty of consumer fraud if they hid past ties to slavery from their customers. The opinion, written by Judge Richard A. Posner, said that "statutes of limitations would be toothless" if descendants could collect damages for wrongs against their ancestors. "A person whose ancestor had been wronged a thousand years ago could sue on the ground that it was a continuing wrong and he is one of the victims," the court said. It said statutes of limitations could be extended in some cases but not for acts committed 100 years ago. The panel also said the descendants lacked standing to sue because their links to the slaves were distant. It said the "causal chain is too long and has too many weak links for a court to be able to find that the defendants' conduct harmed the plaintiffs at all, let alone in an amount that could be estimated without the wildest speculation." The lawsuit was a consolidation of 10 suits filed around the country and moved to Chicago. Slave descendants claim that big American corporations — including such Wall Street giants as JP Morgan Chase & Co., Aetna Inc. and Bank of America — profited from slavery and should pay. It says the companies insured and transported slaves and even issued loans to slaveholders so they could buy slaves. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. had dismissed all the claims. He found that the descendants lacked standing and that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the issue was political and shouldn't be worked out in a court. While largely upholding Norgle's decision, the appeals court kept alive the consumer protection claims. Descendants claim they have been injured by buying products from companies that concealed the fact that they or their predecessor companies somehow benefited from slavery. In allowing the consumer-protection claims, the appeals court said it knew of no law saying a seller has "a general duty to disclose every discreditable fact about himself." But it added that sellers who misrepresent a product, fearing the loss of buyers who would object to it, are guilty of fraud. Bruce Afran, an attorney for the descendants, said that "we have a very fair chance of prevailing" on the fraud claims. He said some banks had filed false information with regulators that could be used as evidence in arguing they were guilty of consumer fraud. Defense attorney Owen C. Pell did not return a message left at his office. Defense attorney Alan S. Madans declined to comment. The one "reparation" that should exist is to historically document the corporations and individuals who *at the time* built their fortunes on slavery. Many of these New England companies and families still have descendants in positions of political power in the US. Almost singularly in the democrat party. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 Does this mean Jesse's kids gotta give back the Bud distributorship? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-12-14 21:10 |
| #16 So, where are the forms for this Rape-a-Nations gig? I wanna get in on the action. This life has worked a hardship on me-n-mine. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-12-14 21:08 |
| #15 How about this ... If I have to pay for what happened many generations ago, then simply put, those receiving the payment today must be slaves today. Now, never would condone slavery and it is a horrid thing, but if I do the time, I must of done the crime and therefore I'd be owed some slaves from the reparation pool. At least it is a discussion point, 'you gunna make me pay, then you gunna work, get on with cleaning the house' |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-12-14 17:34 |
| #14 "What about children of Holocaust victims suing for 1) insurance money, 2) confiscated houses and factories, or 3) looted artwork?" These are thefts and money due and owing to the actual survivor's families. Insurance money is paid to surviving family members. Property confiscated from a father, and then killing the father doesnt' eliminate the estate's claims, and therefore the child's claims for the stolen property. Otherwize, steal with impunity, but just be sure to kill the real owner so as to extimguish the claims to the property. These damages are not speculative and have a real dollar or property figure, while slavery reparations as such are purely speculative. IIRC, holocaust survivors aren't suing for compensation for physical wrongs done to themselves or their ancestors, e.g. civil rights suits; but are suing for their directly stolen property, some of which still exists in perfect condition, and now owned by the very organizations that stole them and concealed the theft. Artwork too has very specific legal provisions for recovering lost and stolen pieces. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-12-14 17:04 |
| #13 There's an interesting question here. What about children of Holocaust victims suing for 1) insurance money, 2) confiscated houses and factories, or 3) looted artwork? I am not sure where the dividing line really is. In 20 years or so, the last survivor will have died. Given how companies have stonewalled in the past; they might end up keeping their immoral gains. Any thoughtful ideas? |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2006-12-14 16:34 |
| #12 But by respecting the Constitution, promoting free markets and the rule of law, and recognizing the limits of judicial power, he's a conservative by default. It's unfortunate that this is true of anyone who isn't a vicious radical or mentally ill, but there ya go. Some deft phrasing with a finnessed backhand swipe there, exJAG. Perish the thought that these black plantiffs would ever go all the way back to the source and identify the Islamic slave traders who so often rounded up their African antecedants for sale and transport to the new world. Such a mental exercise might require them to further understand that Islam continues to have a hand in the slaughter of blacks, be they Muslim or not, to this very day. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-12-14 15:44 |
| #11 I want reparations for my family members that fought and died in the Civil war. Piss head sue crats. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-12-14 12:54 |
| #10 #7 3dc - that'd be the 9th Circus, honey. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-12-14 12:43 |
| #9 Every ethnicity has had its evil members and has been ill-treated at some time. And I don't doubt that there were some murders at Babel. |
| Posted by: Korora 2006-12-14 12:13 |
| #8 I'm suing God for my male pattern baldness. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-12-14 11:47 |
| #7 Imagine if this case had been heard in the 8th CIRCUS Court (SanFran). /snark |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-12-14 11:05 |
| #6 Richard Posner is one of the nation's leading legal scholars (U. Chicago), and everything a judge should be. In a sane world, I wouldn't necessarily define him as a conservative. But by respecting the Constitution, promoting free markets and the rule of law, and recognizing the limits of judicial power, he's a conservative by default. It's unfortunate that this is true of anyone who isn't a vicious radical or mentally ill, but there ya go. Posner also writes prolifically for the lay audience, and I strongly recommend any of his books. His latest is Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency, which is at the top of my must-read list. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-12-14 10:35 |
| #5 Of course, that won't stop them or some activist judges from pursuing this non-starter. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-14 10:33 |
| #4 The panel also said the descendants lacked standing to sue because their links to the slaves were distant. No, judge they lack "standing" because they are not slaves themselves. Doesn't matter how "distant" the links, you can not sue if you're not affected directly yourself. I'm sure exJAG and other attorneys here can explain this better, but Lawyering101 teaches you all about "standing". It's the VERY first thing I learned when I came aboard my job. Basically, "standing" means you have to have been PERSONALLY affected in order to sue. In plain English it means, you have to be a party to the action in question, AND you have to sue the correct person/company for whom is responsible for that action. IOW, even the son/daughter of a slave could NOT sue for reparations, but ONLY the slaves themselves. And, since none of them are still alive, this is all moot. Of course, the same was the case w/ Michael Newdow (suing on behalf of his daughter over "under God" in the Pledge, when he didn't have custody of her). Knowing this case, I assume "Standing" would allow a parent to sue on behalf of a minor too. Finally, what's with adding Bank of America? They didn't exist (at least not the same bank in it's current form) back in slavery days. Was some company/bank they bought out recently tied to slavery? The other two companies have a longer history, so I assume they might be tied to slavery, but again, the legal theory of "standing" disallows ANY forms of reparations now. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-14 10:30 |
| #3 I want compensation for my Irish and Indian ancestors getting screwed over by the US! /sarcasm Fortunately, there is still some sanity left in the US court system. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-12-14 09:38 |
| #2 I want reparations for getting tossed out of Eden. And a pony. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-12-14 09:20 |
| #1 I want reparations for my people's time in Egypt. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-12-14 09:15 |