Worlds Dumbest Court Case

[Vaio]

Unless you Know Different

While your at it go after the blacksmiths who made the chains, the families of the overseers and the plantation owners or maybe (controversial bit) the families of the coloured slave runners

I suffer from the injury of not knowing who I am, having no nationality or ethnic group
Deadria Farmer-Paellman
Slave descendant

hahahahaha

Bunch Of Dickheads

Vaio

[Stew]

And they wonder why Americans get a name for themselves as a suing nation!!


FFS - if this goes through, the end is nigh!

[Embroglio]

Originally Posted by Stew

if this goes through, the end is nigh!

It won't, you can't be put on trial for commiting an offense that wasn't even illegal/deemed wrong at the time years later because society's attitudes have changed.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Stew

And they wonder why Americans get a name for themselves as a suing nation!!


FFS - if this goes through, the end is nigh!

It will be tossed, just like all the other ones that never want to trial. When are these ****tards going to give up.

FYI, Do you think 8 guys on a boat got an entire nation to bow down an give up and be slaves. No, slaves (and to this day) existed already in Africa, the europeans just bought them. Though, it doesn't make it right just pointing out the how shortsighted they are. They need to go back and sue their chief.

[Snurx]

I think it's nice that the same lawyer is taking cases against companies that was supporting the power of the South African goverment under apartheid.

That aside, this is ridicilous. I belive the desendants of the slaves should get compensated, but not by these firms at all. If anybody is to blame today (And I don't think anybody is), it's the US goverment. Suing this just gives the children of the slaves negative response, and that could lead to more racism or other bad things, things that they wont profit in any way from.
That aside, do they make the claim for all slaves, or just themselfs? We can see how well that went, when another group claimed compensation for a "whole group". We don't need more off that in this world. (By that I mean power hungry people that push people that suffers and have suffered in front of them for their own gain. But hey, most people do that anyways)

[Intrepid00]

Surely the UK goverment should then pay compensaion as well to these people that where never slaves but shit heads looking for gold. Though its true the UK outlawed slavery, it did not outlaw slave trade by its citzens and quite frequeantly sold slaves to countries like the US.

PS Snurx, your statement is BS. They where not slaves. That is going along the lines of Joe murdered Doug's family and since this is true now Joe great great grandkids later on have to pay $$$ to Doug's great great grand kids. Even though they don't know what its like to have someone murdered nor what Joe's great grandkids know what its like to murder or practiced it.

[Snurx]

What statement? That the people who have no heritage, no memory of their ancestry, no homeland, no real sense of identity, should not be compensated? Im not talking about money, beacause I think money is BS.
And my point was, that nobody should PAY anything to anybody, at least not ancestors. A simple sorry might just be a start?

[Intrepid00]

Abraham Lincoln already did that. What about Africa saying sorry on selling their people? These people can go **** themeselves. They == McDonalds Coffee lady.

[Snurx]

Abraham Lincon did what? In a time where that country was worse then the Aparheid in South Africa? When whites and blacks were speprerated?
The same country that still seperates people? That oppresses it's native people, putting them into enclaves and **** up their lifes?
The next thing from a apology (And it should be a real, not just a smile for the cameras or whatever apology) would be actually doing something about it's politics. If America was all kind and stuff now, it would not really be a problem, and we could laugh together at those egoistic people trying to get money of others suffering, but as it is now, America can **** themselfs.

[Intrepid00]

I was born in the US? My life has just been fine. What do you mean they put me in an enclaves?

[Snurx]

When refering to native americans, i meant the Indians. The original natives.

And just beacause your life has been fine, it's okay what the country you live in do to others?

[Intrepid00]

Show me a country without sin.

[Embroglio]

canada!

[Apothos]

The Vatican. By definition, anyway.

[djbass]

Stupid? sure.. but I would have said the thousands of people putting in claims for emotional damage are stupid as well.

[Sandsnake]

dunno...while that's pretty dumb, I'm thinking the "McDonald's made me fat!" lawsuit has it beat.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Embroglio

canada!

Canada is a natural sinner just because it has the French.

[I am Idler]

so basically, they are upset because they dont have to live in a u-nation with corruption reaching new heights?

[Dante Hicks]

It's a stupid case, but since they are suing an effectively immortal entity (a corporation) I can sort of see their point.

If my father runs up a billion pounds worth of debt, I can't inherit any of it. But if he runs up a billion pounds worth of assets, I can get it all (after taxes obviously). This doesn't seem particularly equitable.

[Gayle29uk]

I was expecting a SCO thread.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I was expecting a SCO thread.

That will never get to court

Vaio

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's a stupid case, but since they are suing an effectively immortal entity (a corporation) I can sort of see their point.

The company might still be alive but the slaves aren't. There's no reason why their descendants should get compensation.
Also, why are they suing an insurance company??? Clutching at straws methinks.

[Deciduous]

We should all sue car insurance companies for supporting rapists and murderers perhaps.

Originally Posted by Snurx

That the people who have no heritage, no memory of their ancestry, no homeland, no real sense of identity, should not be compensated?

1) I'm not sure I understand what heritage has got to do with anything.
2) I have no memory of my ancestry, how many people actually have 'memory' of their ancestry other than names on a sheet of paper.
3) They're American.
4) Are you fo' real?

I doubt I'll be suing the Italian government because once upon a time, beyond living memory, the Romans fked with my ancestry and heritage.

P.S. I don't think Intrepid00's comparison to the McDonalds coffee lady is fair either considering she suffered 3rd degree burns to her groin. That's got to be painful.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

The company might still be alive but the slaves aren't. There's no reason why their descendants should get compensation.

Well, I agree, but for the sake of argument, let's work through a few hypotheticals. Let's say you are the sole beneficiary to your father's will for these cases :

1. Your father has a £1000 in his bank. He dies. You get it. Fairly simple.

2. Your father has a £1000, he lends it to me (via a formal agreement). He then dies. Do you inherit the credit (you know what I mean, I can never get the terminology right). Common sense would seem to suggest so. I presume in law (although I'm not sure) part of his estate would include outstanding liabilities (i.e. people who owed him money).

3. Your father is wronged in some way (say injured through negligence). Because of this he suffers a loss of earnings. He then takes a case to the county court and the judge award damages of £1000. Your father dies. Do you get the money? I presume so.

4. Your father is wronged as above, but dies before he can take the case to the court. Should you be able to sue on his behalf? Let's say you can prove objectively the accident led to your father losing a £1000.

If your answer is yes to the first three questions but no to the last, what's the difference?

With the slaves example, are we saying there is a statute of limitation on inheriting liability (or whatever)?

[Stew]

Its not your father though, none of the people around then are around today - thats the difference.

You could claim for your husband/father for that mining compensation even if they were dead.

[Deciduous]

Surely it would be up to your father whether he wanted to press charges or not. Wasn't slavery legal at the time, and if so how can you sue someone for wrongdoing when technically the subject wasn't wronged?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Its not your father though, none of the people around then are around today - thats the difference.

I don't understand the difference, unless you are positing some time-limit on all of this. If my great-grandfather died and his fortune was held in an account for x years while they traced me as his sole surviving relative (or whatever), I'd still get the cash.

If I didn't grow up around my father, am I still entitled to his estate?

I understand in this case they are trying to prove they are direct descendents.

Decidusous : Yes, it would be up to my father to claim, but surely I could prove that my father could reasonably have expected to claim (if he was alive).

Also, civil cases like this aren't about breaking the law. If someone breaks the law then generally it's a criminal matter and the state prosecutes.

Besides, there have been cases vs Swiss Banks (and/or Reparations for war crimes) which aren't exactly about breaking the law. If a surviving German war criminal could prove he didn't break any _German_ law in his activities, would this make it ok?

Certain things are above temporary national laws, surely?

[Stew]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Could I sue Pontius Pilate (sp)?

[Marilyn Manson]

Where do you suppose a fellow could buy a swingometer?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I agree, but for the sake of argument, let's work through a few hypotheticals. Let's say you are the sole beneficiary to your father's will for these cases :

1. Your father has a £1000 in his bank. He dies. You get it. Fairly simple.

2. Your father has a £1000, he lends it to me (via a formal agreement). He then dies. Do you inherit the credit (you know what I mean, I can never get the terminology right). Common sense would seem to suggest so. I presume in law (although I'm not sure) part of his estate would include outstanding liabilities (i.e. people who owed him money).

3. Your father is wronged in some way (say injured through negligence). Because of this he suffers a loss of earnings. He then takes a case to the county court and the judge award damages of £1000. Your father dies. Do you get the money? I presume so.

4. Your father is wronged as above, but dies before he can take the case to the court. Should you be able to sue on his behalf? Let's say you can prove objectively the accident led to your father losing a £1000.

If your answer is yes to the first three questions but no to the last, what's the difference?

With the slaves example, are we saying there is a statute of limitation on inheriting liability (or whatever)?

Jesus but I would have thought you'd realise the difference between 4 and the rest. You're making choices on behalf of someone else and despite whatever you believe he or she would have done you have no right to claim on his or her behalf. Maybe your ancestor would not have wanted you (or any organisation) getting the money you obtain due to his suffering.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I agree, but for the sake of argument, let's work through a few hypotheticals. Let's say you are the sole beneficiary to your father's will for these cases :

1. Your father has a £1000 in his bank. He dies. You get it. Fairly simple.

2. Your father has a £1000, he lends it to me (via a formal agreement). He then dies. Do you inherit the credit (you know what I mean, I can never get the terminology right). Common sense would seem to suggest so. I presume in law (although I'm not sure) part of his estate would include outstanding liabilities (i.e. people who owed him money).

3. Your father is wronged in some way (say injured through negligence). Because of this he suffers a loss of earnings. He then takes a case to the county court and the judge award damages of £1000. Your father dies. Do you get the money? I presume so.

4. Your father is wronged as above, but dies before he can take the case to the court. Should you be able to sue on his behalf? Let's say you can prove objectively the accident led to your father losing a £1000.

If your answer is yes to the first three questions but no to the last, what's the difference?

With the slaves example, are we saying there is a statute of limitation on inheriting liability (or whatever)?

I would say that you could only claim for the damages if you can prove that you yourself were somehow wronged by your father's injury. For example his loss of earnings through being unable to work led to you only receiving one toy for Christmas. After all if the only person who suffered was your father then there's no need to pay out compensation now, he ain't suffering any more!

I too have no idea what the law's stance on this is.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Besides, there have been cases vs Swiss Banks (and/or Reparations for war crimes) which aren't exactly about breaking the law. If a surviving German war criminal could prove he didn't break any _German_ law in his activities, would this make it ok?

Certain things are above temporary national laws, surely?

It's not just a case of national law though is it?
Slavery was acceptable in a lot of countries at that time, and from what I've heard, the slaves were sold to them, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming from their homes. Having people as slaves had been commonplace for thousands of years.

In the 40s massacring a whole load of people for no reason other than you don't like the look of them was unacceptable to most people.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Jesus but I would have thought you'd realise the difference between 4 and the rest. You're making choices on behalf of someone else and despite whatever you believe he or she would have done you have no right to claim on his or her behalf. Maybe your ancestor would not have wanted you (or any organisation) getting the money you obtain due to his suffering.

In the example I gave in 4, my father was going to bring the case, but died before doing so.

Yeah, maybe my ancestors (or father) didn't want me to have the cash. My father has left me everything though, in the example I gave so presuming he'd want me to have the extra grand is reasonable enough.

I would say that you could only claim for the damages if you can prove that you yourself were somehow wronged by your father's injury. For example his loss of earnings through being unable to work led to you only receiving one toy for Christmas. After all if the only person who suffered was your father then there's no need to pay out compensation now, he ain't suffering any more!

Compensation of this form isn't necessarily retribution for "suffering".

It's supposed to be restitutional - my father would have had £1000 extra which I would then have.

Deciduous : I'm not sure if most people ever saw slavery as "ok". But this is a dodgy way of deciding morality, anyway? If I rally the populations of India, China and Africa and we manage to win the world-vote on "Is killing people white people ok", does this make it OK? How many people do you need to agree with you before your crimes are forgiven?

[Madina]

i expected the start of this thread to say: i am just watching judge judy on tele and.......

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In the example I gave in 4, my father was going to bring the case, but died before doing so.

Yeah, maybe my ancestors (or father) didn't want me to have the cash. My father has left me everything though, in the example I gave so presuming he'd want me to have the extra grand is reasonable enough. Compensation of this form isn't necessarily retribution for "suffering".

It's supposed to be restitutional - my father would have had £1000 extra which I would then have.

Well in reality we don't know whether the actual slaves were going to bring the case, or whether their ancestors would reallly want them to have the money. Frankly it's all pretty ****ing stupid. Maybe Lloyds should pay them the money and then take their houses, cars et al and stick them back in some shithole village in Africa. Fair's fair am i rite?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Well in reality we don't know whether the actual slaves were going to bring the case, or whether their ancestors would reallly want them to have the money. Frankly it's all pretty ****ing stupid. Maybe Lloyds should pay them the money and then take their houses, cars et al and stick them back in some shithole village in Africa. Fair's fair am i rite?

I think one of the arguments (thats unprovable either way) is that these shit hole villages wouldn't be quite as shit if they hadn't had a large population drain of some of their people at one point.

Plus (I know you were joking, but), clearly it makes no sense to strip people of side-benefits of oppression anyway, even from a civil action context. If I kidnap your daughter, keep her in my basement for 10 years, but she uses that time to write a book which sells a million copies upon her release, it's not like I can somehow claim a share of the royalties.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Compensation of this form isn't necessarily retribution for "suffering".

It's supposed to be restitutional - my father would have had £1000 extra which I would then have.

In that case I think it's stupid. You should only be able to sue someone if they harmed you in some way, not if they harmed a dead relative.

So I guess that makes me non-contradictory. Ha! Ha!

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Deciduous : I'm not sure if most people ever saw slavery as "ok". But this is a dodgy way of deciding morality, anyway? If I rally the populations of India, China and Africa and we manage to win the world-vote on "Is killing people white people ok", does this make it OK? How many people do you need to agree with you before your crimes are forgiven?

Well I dare say the slaves didnt see it as ok

What if in the future incarcerating criminals is seen as immoral, can we expect suits from anyone related to a criminal on their behalf? Or anything that is decided to be immoral in the future.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think one of the arguments (thats unprovable either way) is that these shit hole villages wouldn't be quite as shit if they hadn't had a large population drain of some of their people at one point.

Plus (I know you were joking, but), clearly it makes no sense to strip people of side-benefits of oppression anyway, even from a civil action context. If I kidnap your daughter, keep her in my basement for 10 years, but she uses that time to write a book which sells a million copies upon her release, it's not like I can somehow claim a share of the royalties.

Hitler's relatives are due a portion of the proceeds of Anne Frank's diary and saying otherwise makes you a hypocritical fascist. And it's not only an unprovable argument it's stupid (hay maybe if they hadn't taken slaves we would have been invaded by aliens who were scared off by our taking of slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

What if in the future incarcerating criminals is seen as immoral, can we expect suits from anyone related to a criminal on their behalf? Or anything that is decided to be immoral in the future.

Well, that'll be annoying for us, but obviously the people with that morality then it'll make sense. It's like saying "Well, he murdered a bunch of people but he thought it was OK, so I guess we can't prosecute". Again though, this isn't about morals per se, it's about damages and restitution. I think the case is stupid, but under the logic of inheritance it makes sense.

Originally Posted by CubbyChecker

In that case I think it's stupid. You should only be able to sue someone if they harmed you in some way, not if they harmed a dead relative.

As I say, this isn't about suffering, or revenge or whatever. Let's remove it from individuals for a moment (that might help clarify things). I run Corporation X. I suffer some poor workmanship from your company. I'm in the middle of a financial crisis, so I don't pursue suing you at the moment. Corporation Y then take over my firm, and own all the assets. Surely they'd inherit the right to sue (it's their assets that were devalued now after all). I don't see how it's different from a liability/debt issue.

In the example of my father and his £1000, I am not suing you for the harm you've done to my father, I'm suing you because of the £1000 you've done me out of it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Let's remove it from individuals for a moment (that might help clarify things). I run Corporation X. I suffer some poor workmanship from your company. I'm in the middle of a financial crisis, so I don't pursue suing you at the moment. Corporation Y then take over my firm, and own all the assets. Surely they'd inherit the right to sue (it's their assets that were devalued now after all). I don't see how it's different from a liability/debt issue.

Horrible example. The fact that the value of your company was lower benefitted the purchasing company (corporation Y) and the only person who loses out is the original owner.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Horrible example. The fact that the value of your company was lower benefitted the purchasing company (corporation Y) and the only person who loses out is the original owner.

We can say the true extent of the damage wasn't discovered until after the sale. It doesn't really matter, does it? The point is fairly obvious in either case. There are issues regarding conferring benefits onto third parties in such cases, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp. There might be cases where there's a chain effect of liability.

[roadrunner_0]

why the hell should lloyds be sued just for underwriting ships? it underwrites a lot of things and has no control over what actually happens on the ships as it doesnt own them, surely if they wanted to sue anyone it would have to be the people who owned the ships?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

why the hell should lloyds be sued just for underwriting ships? it underwrites a lot of things and has no control over what actually happens on the ships as it doesnt own them, surely if they wanted to sue anyone it would have to be the people who owned the ships?

Those people would all be long dead. I suppose they could sue the descendents of the ship owners, but they'd be scattered all over the globe, somewhat hard to track down, and probably not particularily wealthy. And suing individual descendants would expose the philosophical flaw in their argument: inherited guilt.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Those people would all be long dead. I suppose they could sue the descendents of the ship owners, but they'd be scattered all over the globe, somewhat hard to track down, and probably not particularily wealthy. And suing individual descendants would expose the philosophical flaw in their argument: inherited guilt.

If you're Catholic, there's nothing wrong with the concept of inherited guilt.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you're Catholic, there's nothing wrong with the concept of inherited guilt.

Once again I'm glad I'm not Catholic; but in any case, it's a non-starter in western jurisprudence.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you're Catholic, there's nothing wrong with the concept of inherited guilt.

Sin != Guilt

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Surely it would be up to your father whether he wanted to press charges or not. Wasn't slavery legal at the time, and if so how can you sue someone for wrongdoing when technically the subject wasn't wronged?

You can't. At least with the US consitition.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

You can't. At least with the US consitition.

You still got some of that left?

[Kurashima]

Another Loony US Lawsuit. Proof positive that the US system is run by people with no concept of Justice, but every concept of renumeration.