A federal judge July 7, 2005 served a blow to the modern slavery reparations movement by tossing out a lawsuit asking corporations that reaped profits from slave labor to pay up.

In a 104-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle said slavery has caused "tremendous suffering and ineliminable scars," but an attempt by slave descendants to seek reparations "more than a century after the end of the Civil War and the formal abolition of slavery fails."

Norgle's decision, the second legal defeat since last year, slams the door on the case in District Court. Plaintiffs can appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, filed in 2002, sought to hold 17 corporations -- including JP Morgan Chase, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Loews, among others -- liable for benefits reaped from slave labor during the pre- and post-Civil War era.

Lionel Jean-Baptiste, local lead counsel to the plaintiffs, said he was bitterly disappointed and promised an appeal.

"This is only the beginning for African-American descendants of slaves who for 200 years had been forced to give their lives, their labor, their children, their culture, their religion and their traditions," Jean-Baptiste said. "There will not be any slowing down of the efforts to get these corporations to pay back what they have amassed on the backs of millions of Africans."

Lawsuit too late
But Norgle said plaintiffs in the case had to prove they were personally injured by slavery, adding that a genealogical tie to slaves is not enough to show that injury. He also ruled the lawsuit was brought too late and, citing long-standing legal doctrine, Norgle argued that a decision over reparations isn't proper for the courts. It's an issue that should be decided by the president or Congress, he said.

"Claims asserting harms against groups of long-dead victims, perpetrated by groups of long-dead wrongdoers, are particularly difficult to bring in modern American courts of law," he wrote.

Norgle said the plaintiffs failed to show that they had experienced any "concrete and particular" suffering that wasn't true of African Americans in general. He also said those suing failed to allege any conduct by the 17 defendants that personally affected any of the plaintiffs.

Conrad Worrill, chairman of the National Black United Front, denounced the ruling as the product of "conservative, right-wing, judicial, political decision-making."

'His eyes are the eyes of a racist' He scoffed at Norgle's contention that plaintiffs had not proved personal injury from slavery.

"Judge Norgle is just a liar; he is exercising his political ideology," Worrill said. "We did prove it. It is a question of whose eyes are interpreting the facts. His eyes are the eyes of a racist."

The slave reparations movement suffered its first setback in January 2004, when Norgle dismissed a consolidated lawsuit against the corporations. Norgle said the defendants failed to establish a direct connection to the corporations.

That ruling left the door open to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which they did, alleging, among other things, violations of consumer protection and corporate fraud. They alleged corporations had business relationships -- including through mortgage loans -- connected to slavery but lied about those ties.

But Andrew R. McGaan, lead defense counsel who represented Brown and Williamson Tobacco, said the amended lawsuit brought "essentially no change at all in the allegations." "The results are not surprising because he dismissed the case originally on the same legal grounds," McGaan said of Wednesday's ruling.

Norgle's "incredibly thorough" and "persuasive" opinion will hold up in a higher court, McGaan said.

Worrill maintained that the reparations movement will gain momentum by pushing a congressional bill to study reparations, through legislation that mirrors Chicago's disclosure law and through a grass-roots mass-mobilization that will culminate at the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March, on Oct. 15. 'It's a very sad day'

"It's not a blow at all," Worrill said.

"The fight for reparations will continue and in fact intensify," he said. Benjamin Obi Nwoye, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said the ruling was more academic than legal.

"More and more corporations are admitting their direct dealings with slaves, and yet the judge will look at it and say we cannot prove the case against these corporations. It doesn't make sense," Nwoye said. "All we're asking for is a payment for the enrichment they've derived from these black Africans. It's a very sad day."

'Plaintiffs offer unsupported conclusions'
Excerpts from Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr.'s 104-page opinion:

"It is undisputed that Congress has taken the initiative to deal with issues arising from the slave trade in the decades after the Civil War. Congress has considered and rejected Representative Conyers' calls for the establishment of a commission to study the effects of slavery. . . . This district court will therefore not substitute its judgment for that of Congress on the matter of slave reparations."

"Reparations are justified, advocates argue, on several grounds . . . however, there are a number of cogent arguments against reparations, including the arguments that present day Americans are not morally or legally liable for historical injustices, that the debt to African Americans has already been paid, and that reparations talk is divisive, immersing African Americans in a culture of victimhood."

"Courts of law . . . are constrained by judicial doctrine and precedent. . . . For that reason, advocates of slave reparations may resolve to bring their concerns and demands to the legislative and executive branches of government.

"Plaintiffs face insurmountable problems in establishing that they have suffered concrete . . . individualized harms at the hands of defendants."

"Plaintiffs offer unsupported conclusions wrapped in legally significant terms, such as 'intentional misrepresentation' and 'unjust enrichment,' which are insufficient to establish standing."

"Plaintiffs cannot establish a personal injury sufficient to confer standing by merely alleging some genealogical relationship to African Americans held in slavery over one-hundred, two-hundred, or three-hundred years ago."

Source From: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-slave07.html

© July 2005 By Afro Staff