![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More Clutter in the Courts to Think About
Jan. 27th, 2004 08:58 pmArticle from The Associated Press
CHICAGO-- 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.
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.
So what's up with this? 2 women just decide to sue some rich companies because 100 years ago some one was taken advantage of? How does that entitle them to anything? They weren't the abused ones.
I seriously doubt that anyone at the companies they're suing was around back then. Besides which, if I recall, slavery was legal at the time. So how were the companies breaking any laws, and thus deserving of a suit? Why did the judge dismiss this without prejudice instead of with prejudice? I'd think he'd want to never have to deal with this again...waste of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify slavery. I'm just saying that it's an old issue, situations have changed; people need to deal with today's problems, not things that hurt their great-great-greats.
CHICAGO-- 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.
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.
So what's up with this? 2 women just decide to sue some rich companies because 100 years ago some one was taken advantage of? How does that entitle them to anything? They weren't the abused ones.
I seriously doubt that anyone at the companies they're suing was around back then. Besides which, if I recall, slavery was legal at the time. So how were the companies breaking any laws, and thus deserving of a suit? Why did the judge dismiss this without prejudice instead of with prejudice? I'd think he'd want to never have to deal with this again...waste of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify slavery. I'm just saying that it's an old issue, situations have changed; people need to deal with today's problems, not things that hurt their great-great-greats.
