Blacks suing corporate USA for $1.4 trillion!

[p0ink]

buddy28,

so you think it is right that companies like CSX should be sued, even though they werent established during the time of slavery. They should be sued simply because they own the majority of rail lines across the united states that were built by not only blacks, but the chinese as well.

 

[Frackal]

If it's a crime against humanity then why don't whites or Asians benefit? When did they stop being human?

The only person who shouldn't benefit from this is me.

-Warik

Yes, as well all know, Warik is sub-human.

 

[buddy28]

buddy28,

so you think it is right that companies like CSX should be sued, even though they werent established during the time of slavery. They should be sued simply because they own the majority of rail lines across the united states that were built by not only blacks, but the chinese as well.

\

Difficult question. But my answer would be yes.

If you buy a stolen television from a theif, and the victim finds you and demands the television back from you, is he/she no longer entitled to compensation because you paid for it?

Its damaged goods bro. Blood money.

 

[casavant]

Same shit for civil suits and traffic court. Did you know that I hired a lawyer, plead not guilty to my ticket, was found not guilty, and still have to pay court costs? That makes a lot of sense.

This country's legal system is a disgrace.

-Warik

I hear you man. I got drunk, challenged a titty bar full of Mexicans to a brawl, then punched out the full glass door on my way out. And I had to pay for damages and court costs!! What a load of shit!

 

[FreakMonster]

The legal obstacles are daunting. Slaves and their masters are dead. Company records, though sometimes damning, are seldom complete. Damages may be impossible to calculate. Most important, no company accused of profiting from slavery was breaking the U.S. law at the time: Slavery was not a crime.

Many companies that are potential targets for reparations lawsuits didn't exist until after emancipation, some not until the 20th century. Instead, they bought the slave histories of other companies in the corporate acquisitions over the years.

One of the lawyers in this case is Johnny Cochran. Does that surprise you?

 

[RyanH]

is unclear, governing morality will prevail.

The corporations deserve to pay a fuck load. Why not?? Because the people who made the decision to enslave blacks are dead?? Well guess what. Your government indirectly condened the use of corporate slavery by not intervening when they had the chance. Despite the sincerity and princibles which inspried the drawing of the Declaration, the lives sacrificed in the American Revolution to confirm the documents legality were eventually made trivial by the corrupt aspirations of the succeeding government.

Theoretically, you are correct about many of your assertions. Corporations are a perpetual entity that survive the lives of its shareholders, and corporations like individuals can be sued. i.e. Arther Anderson is now being criminally indicted. Thus, it would seem that corporations should legally be obligated to pay for any of its abuses towards its shareholders or the public in general.

However, as I mentioned before the problem is legally it will be very difficult to prevail on this particular type of claim. I would think that the Statute of Limitations would certainly be a problem. Moreover, the injured parties are dead, and how would their lineal descendents from over 150 years later show harm? A challenging task for any attorney. The law ordinarily frowns on broad injuries because of problems of proof, particularized injury makes for the best claim and that is simply not present in this case.

I really doubt that those bringing this suit really expect to win. I've read that Johnny Cochran, a few distinguished Harvard professors are behind the suit, and in my view, their strategy is to never bring this suit to trial. Instead, the negative publicity this suit will bring (I've already seen a full report about this matter on the front of a major newspaper), will put pressure on these corporations to give something back to the African-American community.

Frankly, Buddy, I'm with you on this. This is all a matter of accountability, isn't it? You injure a party, you pay the price. The same Republicans who routinely preach accountability and responsibility are now arguing that corporations should be allowed to escape responsibility for its past atrocities. Well, the law may allow this result, but in the end, negative publicity will not.

So long as the media continues to cover this story and public pressure grows, African-Americans will probably eventually prevail in some form or another. However, if this goes to trial they won't, and my guess is that ultimately these companies are going to settle to get this story off the pages of our nations newspapers.

Ryan.

 

[FreakMonster]

there was a thread a few months back about this very topic. i argued blacks should sue slave owning corporations that benefitted from slavery.

cudos to them, and i hope the blacks win.

Yep, here is that thread:

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115084&highlight=Black

 

[Warik]

Then tell me why the North American public are recieving massive payouts from Tobacco firms for deceased victims of smoking??

Because the judge(s) responsible for this decision are biased and not well-versed in the law.

I hate tobacco companies, I hate cigarettes and I hate the people who smoke them in my breathing space; however, no crime was committed. People who smoked knew full well the health risks they were taking.

Morality? More like subjectivity. There's nothing immoral about giving someone a choice.

The corporations deserve to pay a fuck load. Why not??

Uh, because no one alive in the corporations have committed any such crime, perhaps? What you are proposing is as blatantly illogical and barbaric as holding someone responsible for his father's crimes. This isn't the fucking Klingon homeworld, man. You can't go to jail because someone found out that your dad robbed a bank. People are responsible for their own actions, those alive in these corporations have performed no actions related to slave owning, and thus, CANNOT MORALLY, LEGALLY, LOGICALLY, or ANYTHING-ELSE-LY be held responsible!

Sometimes its more important to do the right thing, then to do the legal thing.

This is true, and I wholeheartedly agree. As one who holds morality over law, I do believe that the "right" thing should take precedence over the "legal" thing; however, in this situation, the "right" thing and the "legal" thing are one in the same. It is NOT right to hold someone responsible for acts that he never committed.

Plain and simple.

You didn't rob a bank? We won't hold you responsible for a bank robbery.

You didn't kill anyone? We won't hold you responsible for a murder.

You didn't own any slaves? WE WON'T HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR OWNING SLAVES!

-Warik

 

[Warik]

Yes, as well all know, Warik is sub-human.

Please do not include the word "human" in any expression of my origins.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

The same Republicans who routinely preach accountability and responsibility are now arguing that corporations should be allowed to escape responsibility for its past atrocities.

Please refrain from putting words into the "same Republicans'" (i.e. me and others on this board) collective mouth, because they are not correct.

I FULLY AGREE that corporations, individuals, and even inanimate objects should be held responsible for past atrocities!

The problem here is that NO ONE IS GUILTY OF ANY PAST ATROCITIES!

Everyone is fucking dead! Get a clue and move on. Try suing Germany for the Holocaust - some of them might still be alive.

-Warik