Slavery Reparations

Great Debates
21

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,” and attorneys can be sanctioned for violations. They are unlikely to win, but the suits have not been filed in bad faith. A reasonable argument for unjst enrichment can be made, even if you think it should lose. It’s the same arguments that were made in the Holocaust suits.

There’s nothing wrong with filing lawsuits in part to bring publicity to your cause, as long as there is a genuine legal argument that can be made. Pushing for a settlement is not blackmail - it’s usually the most desirable outcome of a lawsuit.

22

No doubt you are legally correct, chula. However, the threat of suing can be a means of legal blackmail.

If I demand money from some person or organization, under the threat of divulging an embarassing fact, then I am committing blackmail – a serious felony. However, it’s pefectly legal to threaten to sue them in a way that will divulge that embarassing fact, and offer instead a financial settlement.

This gimmick was used in a Rex Stout mystery written about 70 years ago.

23

Blackmail is a weird law anyway. But there’s no way it could apply here. The fact that these corporation profited from slave labor is not a secret but public knowledge. And they are not demanding money to keep quiet - they’re already exposed the supposed secret. Why should drawing attention to something someone has done that you think is wrong be illegal? That would be bizarre.

24

I am pretty sure Jim Crow = de jure segregation (as opposed to informal segregation)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=44633&tocid=0&query=jim%20crow

Brown v. Board of Education , the case that overturned much of ‘Jim Crow’ involved a school in Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas did have a southern element (before the Civil War there was a mini-civil war over whether Kansas would allow slavery itself), but in most ways it was a Midwestern state - and mainly Republican.

Maybe the ‘real’ southern states had full Jim Crow, but the states that sort of ring the south like Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and so on had segregation too.

25

I hope no Kentuckian plugs me with buckshot here for implying that their state wasn’t really southern. I meant former Confederate states.

26

Don’t forget the amounts spent on welfare, public housing, social programs, and minority scholarships (many of which are federally-funded).

27

Yes. The purpose of these lawsuits is to smear the reputations of these firms in the hopes of forcing a settlement. Even in the unlikely event of the prosecutors winning the case initially, the defendants could drag the case through the appeals process and gradually get the amounts reduced to almost nothing. The prosecutors real hope is that these companies don’t want a protracted legal battle.

In the United States, a “loser pays” punishment can be imposed if the judge feels that the sole purpose of a lawsuit was to hurt the defendants’ reputations, but the only cases that I’ve ever seen it used in are divorce cases.

28

Plus, they will probably ask for dinner to go with those desserts. (Sorry, couldn’t resist):wink:

29

I hope Holland isn’t going to be sued for the crappy transport the slaves got from Africa to the america’s.

Holland appoligizes for this and promises it won’t happen again.:rolleyes:

30

I believe that quite a few African tribal chieftans sold many of their own people into slavery. I also understand that some of the tribes in Africa would capture and sell into slavery members of other tribes. Why not sue the descendants of those chieftans for reparations?

31

These programs were not intended as reparations for slavery. Again, if they were, whites and other non-enslaved groups would not be eligible for them. Did you know that there are more white people on welfare than–gasp!–black people! How do we explain this fact if welfare is the same as slave reparations?

Your argument also assumes that all descendants of American slaves have benefited from such programs. This is not true.

Reparations do not equal charity. Just as if you were to sue someone for stealing your property, you would be seeking compensation, not hand-outs or charity. Holocaust survivors received reparations even though many are probably well-off financially. I’m not familiar with the plaintiffs in this case, but other pro-reparations organizations have spent time and effort actually estimating how much wealth was accrued by 300+ years of slave labor. It was in the trillions, the last time I saw.

**

Suing one party does not preclude the possibility of going after others. So they very well might go after African governments, even though many of those responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade have radically changed since the times we’re talking about and it can be argued they no longer exist.

And if they did go after Africans, would people still find it a ludicrous case? Or is it just ludicrous when they go after corporations here in the good ole USA? Just curious…

**

Cite? I mean, what if they can show that these companies did in fact contribute to the damage suffered by American slaves and their descendents? Will it be a smear campaign then?

Just like an earlier poster said, it seems to me it’s already been public knowledge that these corporations got their hands sullied in the slavery business. It seems to me that it was inevitable that they would be called to the carpet sooner or later.

**

Also, the so-called “liberal” states had their own Jim Crow. Namely, New York. It was legal to discriminate against blacks even in their own neighborhoods. Harlem, for instance, had many establishments that barred black patrons in favor of whites. Imagine being Ella Fitzgerald during the Harlem Renaissance and not being allowed to enter the Cotton Club for fear of offending the white Manhattanites coming just to slum.

Because their was not legislation in place to prevent it for the longest time, I’m sure disparities in wages between black and white workers existed all over, just not in the evil South.

Housing discrimination is a national thing that exists even today. The most segregated cities are located not in the South, but in those so-called “Jim Crow-free” cities of the North.

Jim Crow in action was business as usual for these United States, but only was it formally codified into law in the South. So as far as suing the government, only local governments–not the federal government–would charges be pressed against if reparations for this policy were sought.

**

Well at least Holland apologizes! We can’t even get our own government to do that.

32

Right, these lawsuits are not illegal. However, the suers could profit in a couple of ways:

  1. Continue a high-publicity campaign related to the suits until the corporations pay them money.

  2. Use the example of these suits to threaten other corporations with similar suits, and demand money from them.

For better or for worse, this approach is legal.

33

12(b)(6). Goodbye.

Frankly, if this survives a 12(b)(6) motion, I suspect it will be dismissed at a rule 56 proceeding - summary judgement, for those following along wiithout your copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And a 12(b)(6) motion is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  • Rick
34

You are aware, of course, that thousands of lynchings took place outside the South? You are aware that the real stronghold of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century was the Midwest and not the Southeast? Does the term “de facto segregation” mean anything to you?

35

chula, chula, chula - I fear you misapprehend the import of Rule 11.
First, the fact that a lawsuit is filed in good faith is irrelevant under Rule 11. As the Advisory Committee noted concerning the 1993 amendments to the Rule, Rule 11 “establishes an objective standard, intended to eliminate any ‘empty-head pure-heart’ justification for patently frivolous arguments.” (emphasis added).
Second, the fact that one element of a claim is sufficient isn’t good enough under Rule 11 - Rule 11 covers both factual and legal contentions. Thus, even if there is a reasonable factual argument that unjust enrichment occurred, there is no basis in law for the claim, because the statute of limitations on that unjust enrichment ran centuries before the suit was filed.
*Third, while the article doesn’t make clear who the plaintiffs are, the mere fact that a reasonable argument may be made that unjust enrichment occurred isn’t the whole of the factual contention. The occurrence of a tort is insufficient to give rise to a meritorious claim - the plaintiff must have been injured by the tort. Issues of proximate causation, record-keeping and the like will very likely make it impossible to fashion a meritorious claim that, for example, X plaintiff’s descendants came across on a slave ship owned by John Brown, and I doubt strongly that the plaintiff’s attorney made an “appropriate investigation”, as required by the Advisory Committee.

I have actually assisted in winning a $1.6 million attorneys’ fees sanction against an attorney, a plaintiff, and a third-party precisely for “legal process blackmail” and “exortion” (to quote the judge), a large part of such blackmail being extortive settlement demands and threats of adverse publicity (as well as actual adverse publicity) if the settlement proposal was not accepted. So, while you’re statement is true in most cases, it certainly is not true in all.

In any event, I doubt that Rule 11 sanctions will be sought here, unfortunately. It would be impolitic to go after the plaintiffs’ attorneys here, even if it is justified.

Sua

36

december, I think the blackmail might work in a slightly different way, which is the threat of a huge judgment rather than the threat of exposing some embarassing fact.

If I’m the plaintiff’s lawyer, first of all, I would find a way to avoid federal court. That seems to me easy enough. You plead your case under state law, and ensure that at least one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants is “located” in the state where you bring suit.

FRCP Rule 11, cited in other posts, can be and has been used to fine lawyers and clients for frivolous pleadings. However, at least in Texas, the corresponding rule of procedure in state courts has not been used to the nearly same degree.

So here’s how it might go: lawsuit is filed, defendants raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Trial judge, who is elected (they are in Texas), feels the political pressure when the defendants move to dismiss on summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Trial judge sees he or she is about to dismiss a multi-billion dollar suit on what will be perceived as a technicality. Trial judge denies motion for summary judgment.

In fact, the trial judge may well be tempted to deny all such defensive motions, including the state’s version of 12(b)(6), with the thought that it will get sorted out at the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or will force a settlement. I’m sure my fellow Texas legal dopers, especially those who have had the good fortune of representing a corporate defendant in the Valley, know what I’m talking about. We had a case not long ago where we raised Rule 12(b)(6) against a claim of “environmental racism”, and the judge simply sat on the motion. So defensive motions are not nearly as cut and dried in high profile cases as one might think (or have hoped).

Jury returns an enormous verdict for the plaintiffs. Judge enters judgment, denies post-trial motions notwithstanding the verdict. Defense appeals, right? Of course, but in Texas, and no doubt in many other states, the appellant has to post a bond to cover the judgment in order to prevent the plaintiff from executing on the judgment pending appeal. The cost of a bond for a gajillion dollars, even if a bonding company is willing to post such a huge sum, may itself be prohibitive. IIRC, this was the specific problem with the judgment and appeal in the illustrious Pennzoil-Texaco litigation. Further, if punitive damages are involved, there will likely be a serious question about whether the defendant’s insurance policies cover such damages.

So even if the defense is ultimately vindicated on appeal, it’s the threat of serious financial pain that is the blackmail, or whatever you want to call it.

Like it or not, judges, even federal judges, do feel political pressures, so monstro, perhaps that is what makes vinnie have a bad feeling.

37

Cite? I’d like to even see a cite that said thousands of lynchings took place in the South. I only ask because in my entire life I’ve never seen concrete numbers.

Marc

38

I think that this is a harder thing to say. CSX claims not to have existed prior to 1980. The complaint cites this article to tie CSX to slavery. It seems to me that there is no way to use or own any rail line east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line without Getting your hands sullied in the slavery business, even if you go out and buy it today.

39

Apart from your total miscalculation of the kinds of “political pressures” that an elected judge in Texas faces, Erofeev, that was a fairly creative scenario. You also miss out on the Texas mandamus procedure that would certainly be availed of to get the (very conservative) appellate courts involved if the unthinkable occurred and the suit survived the motion for summary judgment. But perhaps the biggest fact you missed is simply that this suit has been filed in federal court, not a state court. Hello, 12(b)(6), and hopefully also Rule 11. This suit is the very definition of “frivolous.”

40

This has to be one of the silliest major lawsuits in history. Let’s count the ways that it’s stupid:

  1. Slavery was legal. None of the accused corporations broke the law in any way. A good analogy is the millions of Americans who were paid less than the minimum wage before the minimum wage was established. Do their descendants have the right to sue the corporations that “underpaid” their ancestors?

  2. Like it or not, slaves were paid. They were given room and board. The harm of slavery was not that the victims weren’t paid, but rather that they had no choice in the matter. They couldn’t quit or change jobs if they were dissatisfied. The injustice was a denial of freedom, not wages.

  3. Had slaves been paid in cash like most unskilled northern laborers of the same time period, they would have been paid subsistence wages. In other words, they would have spent nearly every penny they made on room and board. They would not have saved up thousands of dollars to pass on to their children and grandchildren.

Slavery was certainly a shameful blot on the history of the world. But reparations are an absurd idea. Sadly, I fear that Jesse Jackson or one of his race-baiting kin will threaten a boycott of these companies unless they agree to pay some sort of reparations.