Wednesday, August 22, 2018

 RacismLogo02

 RacismLogTweetTrump02

DEFENDANTS

116. Defendant FLEETBOSTON is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110.

117. It engaged in business that affects interstate commerce including the jurisdictions named in the lawsuits.

118. FLEETBOSTON is the successor in interest to Providence Bank which was founded by Rhode Island businessman John Brown.

119. John Brown owned ships that embarked on several slaving voyages and Brown was prosecuted in federal court for participating in the international slave trade after it had become illegal under federal law.

120. Upon information and belief, FLEETBOSTON knew that Brown and others similarly situated intended to inflict emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans.

121. Upon information and belief, Providence Bank, aware of the borrower's intent, lent substantial sums to Brown, thus financing and profiting from the founder's illegal slave trading and in his intentional infliction of emotional distress upon enslaved Africans.

122. Upon information and belief, John Brown, the predecessor of FLEETBOSTON, provided one or more instrumentalities of slavery. Such instrumentalities included but were not limited to finance and other supports which encouraged slave masters to continue their tortious conduct.

123. FLEETBOSTON, profited and has continued to profit from illegal slave trading in that it failed to disgorge the ill-gotten wealth it inherited from it predecessor, John Brown.

124. Upon information and belief, FLEETBOSTON, through its predecessor(s), also collected custom fees due from ships transporting slaves, thus, further knowingly and intentionally profiting from the slave trade and its practice of intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon enslaved Africans.

125. Upon information and belief, FLEETBOSTON, through its predecessor(s), also collected custom duties and fees due on ships transporting enslaved Africans in violation of Rhode Island and federal law, thus profiting from the illegal slave trade.

125. Upon information and belief, over 41,369 Africans were enslaved during the time that FLEETBOSTON, through its predecessor(s), encouraged the continuation of slavery because it profited from the customs duties and fees it collected from ships that engaged in the illegal slave trade. Intentionally and knowingly providing loans to slave traders to engage in illegal slave trading, and the regular collection of duties and fees, earned in the illegal enslavement of Africans constituted aiding and abetting in the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon those enslaved Africans. Such business practices were unlawful, and unfair business.

126. FLEETBOSTON, also participated in the torture and enslavement of Africans in that it provided loans to slave traders which encouraged slave traders to engage in illegal slave trading. Such business practices were unlawful, and unfair business.

127. Upon information and belief, FLEETBOSTON was approached by various members of the general public to verify its historical connection to slavery. Its responses were either evasive, unclear, or denials, thereby constituting fraudulent business acts. FLEETBOSTON withheld information or made misleading statements regarding their participation in and profiting from slavery.

128. FLEETBOSTON made various misleading statements to the Press from March 2000 to February 2002, attempting to disassociate its predecessor company from its current company. FLEETBOSTON engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise so that the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature of participation and profit it derived from slave trade and unpaid slave labor.

129. Defendant CSX (“CSX”) is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business Richmond, Virginia. It is a successor-in-interest to numerous predecessor railroad lines that were constructed or run, at least in part, by slave labor.

130. CSX is a railroad transportation company. It engaged in the business that affects interstate commerce. It provided the instrumentality of slavery by transporting enslaved Africans to and from various parts of the United States. It is believed that Defendant CSX leased enslaved Africans and maintained ownership and control of enslaved Africans.

131. CSX withheld information or made a misleading statement to the Press regarding their participation in and profiting from slavery.

132. Upon information and belief, its predecessor rail lines: i) knew or should have known that the businesses with which they contracted and/or for whom they provided transportation participated in the slave trade and slavery; that key to the success of those endeavors was the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans ii) intended to help these businesses to continue in this wrongful practice; and iii) took steps to do so.

133. CSX engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiffs and others similarly situated would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of participation and profit the defendant derived from slavery.

134. Upon information and belief, it does continuous and systematic business in New York, Illinois, California, Texas, and Louisiana.

135. Defendant AETNA INC. (“AETNA”) is an insurance corporation with its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.

136. Upon information and belief, AETNA's predecessor in interest, provided the instrumentality of slavery by underwriting insurance policies for slave owners against the loss of their African slaves which made the lives of the enslaved Africans easily dispensable at no cost to the slave traders.

137. AETNA knew the horrors of slave life as is evident in a rider through which the company declined to pay the premiums for slaves who were lynched or worked to death or who committed suicide.

138. Upon information and belief, AETNA knew or should have known that an essential element to the maintenance of slavery was the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

139. AETNA insured enslaved Africans who worked in the agricultural industry of which many plaintiffs and plaintiffs' ancestors were enslaved.

The writing of such insurance policies constituted unfair business acts designed to support the immoral practices of domestic slavery as set forth by the cruel and inhumane Slave.

140. Upon information and belief, AETNA, unjustly profited from the institution of slavery.

141. Upon information and belief, AETNA: i) knew or should have known that the persons/businesses for whom they provided insurance did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to further that practice; and iii) by providing insurance policies did so. AETNA aided and abetted those who engaged in the maintenance of slavery.

142. AETNA withheld information or made a misleading statement regarding their participation in and profiting from slavery.

143. AETNA engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiff ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of participation and profit AETNA derived from slavery.

144. Upon information and belief, it does continuous and systematic business in New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.

145. Defendant BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN & COMPANY (“BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN”) is a financial institution with its principal place of business in New York, New York. It is the successor corporation to Brown Brothers & Co.

146. The founders, James and William Brown, built their merchant bank by lending to Southern planters, brokering slave-grown cotton and acting as a clearinghouse for the South's complex financial system. BROWN BROTHERS earned commissions arranging cotton shipments from Southern ports to mills in New England and Britain. It also loaned millions directly to planters, merchants and cotton brokers throughout the South.

147. When those planters or their banks failed, BROWN BROTHERS used its local agents to run repossessed plantations and manage the enslaved Africans working there.

148. BROWN BROTHERS' enrichment from slave labor is further evidenced by Louisiana court records dating back to the 1840's that reveal the firm's ownership of at least two cotton plantations totaling 4,614 acres and the plantations' 346 slaves, each named in court records. BROWN BROTHERS & COMPANY merged with two other firms in 1931 to create BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN.

149. BROWN BRTOHERS built their merchant bank by lending to Louisiana planters, brokering slave grown cotton, sugar cane and acting as a clearinghouse for the New Orleans based slavery business.

150. When those banks failed, BROWN BROTHERS seized the slaveholders' slaves and then managed the slaves from slave owners who defaulted on debts.

151. BROWN BROTHERS withheld information or made a misleading statement based upon press reports in an attempt to disassociate itself from its predecessor's business.

152. Defendant BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiff ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of its participation and profit it derived from slavery.

153. Upon information and belief, BROWN BROTHERS: i) was aware of the horrors of slavery and its maintenance through the intentional infliction of emotional distress; ii) despite that knowledge, intended to further this practice through its financing of slave owners and the business of slavery; and iii) did provide such financing.

154. Defendant NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (“NEW YORK LIFE”) is an insurance corporation with its general office located in New York, New York.

155. NEW YORK LIFE's predecessor-in-interest, Nautilus Insurance, earned premiums from its sale of life insurance to slave owners. One third of its first 1,000 policies were to insure the lives of slaves.

156. It insured slaves in the agricultural industry of which some or all of the plaintiffs and/or their ancestors were a part.

157. Upon information and belief, NEW YORK LIFE knew that an essential element to the maintenance of slavery was the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

158. The writing of the above mentioned insurance policies also constitute unfair business acts designed to help finance the immoral practices of slavery. NEW YORK LIFE engaged in business that affects interstate commerce.

159. NEW YORK LIFE withheld information or made misleading statements regarding their participation in and profiting from slavery.

160. NEW YORK LIFE withheld information or it did not report its slavery policies until it was compelled to do so under California law.

161. Upon information and belief, NEW YORK LIFE: i) knew that the persons/businesses for whom they provided insurance did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to further that practice; and iii) by providing insurance policies did so. NEW YORK LIFE aided and abetted those who engaged in the maintenance of slavery.

162. NEW YORK LIFE engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiff ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of participation and profit it derived from slavery.

163. NEW YORK LIFE's predecessor, company Nautilus, continued to provide the instrumentalities and support for slavery after slavery had been abolished. It issued polices on the lives of slaves after slavery had been abolished in New York.

162. Defendant NORFOLK SOUTHERN (“NORFOLK”) is a corporation with its principal place of business located Norfolk, Virginia. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce. Defendant NORFOLK also provided the instrumentality necessary for the enslavement of Africans.

163. NORFOLK is a successor-in-interest to numerous railroad lines that were constructed or run, in part, by slave labor.

164. Upon information and belief, its predecessor rail lines: i) knew that the businesses with which they contracted and/or for whom they provided transportation participated in the slave trade and slavery; that key to the success of those endeavors was the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans ii) intended to help these businesses to continue in this wrongful practice; and iii) took steps to do so.

165. NORFOLK participated in the institution of slavery in that it derived the benefits of unpaid slave labor and it provided financial supports to slave owners and slave traders.

167. Defendant LEHMAN BROTHERS is a corporation with its principal business located in New York, New York.

168. LEHMAN BROTHERS founder Henry Lehman began as a peddler in 1844, but shortly thereafter when his two brothers, Mayer and Emanuel joined him, they soon grew rich as middlemen in the slave-grown cotton trade.

169. Upon information and belief, the Lehman Brothers knew that that the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon enslaved Africans was key to the cotton trade. Upon information and belief, Lehman Brothers: i) knew that the businesses with which they contracted intended to inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to help perpetuate this practice; and iii) took steps to do so through its business interactions with the producers of cotton.

170. After Henry Lehman's death in 1856 and after the war, the remaining two brothers moved north and continued trading in cotton, oil, sugar and coffee, and then took a seat on the New York Stock Exchange in 1887.

171. LEHMAN BROTHERS participated in the institution of slavery by providing financial supports to slave traders and slave masters who used unpaid slave labor to supply the business enterprise of LEHMAN BROTHERS. Furthermore, Defendant LEARMAN BROTHERS also owned slaves.

172. Defendant SOCIETY OF LLYOD'S, aka LLOYD'S OF LONDON, (“LLOYD”) is a foreign entity. It is an underwriting insurance company with its principal place in London, U.K.

173. LLOYD provided one or more of instrumentalities of slavery in that it insured ships utilized for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

172. The writing of such policies was an unfair business designed to help finance the international slave trade, to provide other corporations that profited from slave trade with human chattel. Furthermore, by writing such insurance policies, Defendant LLYOD provided the instrumentality of slavery.

173. LLOYD'S engages in business that affects interstate commerce.

174. Defendant LLOYD'S engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiffs' ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific as to the nature and level of its participation and profit it derived from slavery.

175. LLOYD'S withheld information in that it failed to report any documents to the California registry as required, claiming a fire destroyed its documents.

176. Upon information and belief, Society of Lloyds was aware that essential to the practice of the international slave trade was the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans. Upon information and belief, the SOCIETY OF LLOYDS: i) knew or should have known that the parties for whom they wrote insurance intended to continue the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans; ii) intended to perpetuate this practice; and iii) did so perpetuate it through the insurance policies it underwrote.

177. Defendant UNION PACIFIC is a railroad transportation corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. It is a successor-in-interest to numerous predecessor railroad lines that were constructed or run in part by slave labor. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce. This defendant by and through the conducts of its predecessors provided the instrumentality of slavery that resulted to the more or more of the harms alleged herein.

178. UNION PACIFIC withheld information or made a misleading statement regarding their participation in profiting from slavery.

179. Defendant UNION PACIFIC engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiffs' ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of participation and profit it derived from slavery.

180. Upon information and belief, its predecessor rail lines: i) knew or should have known that the businesses with which they contracted and/or for whom they provided transportation participated in the slave trade and slavery; that key to the success of those endeavors was the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans ii) intended to help these businesses to continue in this wrongful practice; and iii) took steps to do so.

181. Defendant JP MORGAN CHASE (“MORGAN CHASE”) is a banking corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Two of its predecessor banks that merged to become JP Morgan Chase were behind a consortium to raise money to insure slavery. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce. This Defendant by and through its predecessors provided the instrumentality of slavery that resulted to one or more of the harm alleged herein.

182. MORGAN CHASE withheld information or made a misleading statement regarding their participation in and profiting from slavery.

182. MORGAN CHASE engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiffs' ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure as to the nature and level of participation and profit it derived from slavery.

181. MORGAN CHASE attempted to deny its association with slavery in the Press in or about January 2003 after other evidence, including a circular shows otherwise.

182. MORGAN CHASE operated with the clear intent of taking in slave-related business after the abolition of slavery in the North.

183. Upon information and belief, J.P. MORGAN CHASE predecessor banks: i) knew or should have known that the persons/businesses for whom they provided insurance did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to further that practice; and iii) by providing insurance policies did so. These predecessors aided and abetted those who engaged in the maintenance of slavery through the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

184. Defendant, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (“REYNOLDS”) is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce.

185. REYNOLDS TOBACCO is the beneficiary of assets acquired through the forced uncompensated labors of enslaved African-Americans.

186. Hardin Reynolds, father of R.J. Reynolds owned and operated a tobacco factory at the plantation called “Rock Spring Plantation” - the present day Reynolds Homestead in Critz, Virginia.

187. Before the Civil War, Hardin Reynolds owned at least 88 slaves who provided labor on the plantation, including in the Rock Spring tobacco factory.

188. The operating information on the Rock Spring factory shows that slave labor was used to produce tobacco and other goods for the tobacco factory.

189. Hardin Reynolds continued operation of his tobacco factory during and after the Civil war, and was not broken by the war.

190. Amongst other enterprises, Hardin engaged in business partnerships with his children. Hardin Reynolds' son, Richard Joshua Reynolds, founder of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, worked at the Rock Spring tobacco factory after the Civil War, and later formed a business partnership with his father at the factory.

191. The partnership was called “Hardin Reynolds and Son.” In the fall of 1874, R.J. Reynolds sold his interest in the Rock Spring Factory and purchased land in North Carolina in October 1874 upon which he built an R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company factory.

192. Records indicate that R. J. took half of two year's profit from the Rock Spring factory to found his new company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

193. On April 4, 1899, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company became a subsidiary of the American Tobacco Company through its relationship with the Continental Tobacco Company, a holding company of the American Tobacco Company.

194. The American Tobacco Company owned controlling shares of stock in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company thereby benefiting from and aiding in its already profitable operations.

195. This relationship existed until 1911, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that broke the old American Tobacco Company into several large competing companies.

196. Upon information and belief, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company does continuous and systematic business in every jurisdiction in which the suits have been filed.

197. Currently existing companies, once part of the American Tobacco Company, and therefore beneficiaries of the slave labor include: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson (formerly The American Tobacco Company via ownership of its predecessor by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company), Liggett Group Inc. (formerly Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company), and Lorillard Tobacco Company a subsidiary of Loews Corporation. All do continuous and systematic business in all the jurisdictions in which the cases have been filed.

198. It attempted to minimize its involvement in statements to the Press claiming its company was not founded until after slavery was abolished, misleading plaintiffs into believing that the company itself was not founded on the profits of slave labor.

199. Defendant BROWN AND WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (“BROWN & WILLIAMSON”) is a corporation with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce.

200. BROWN AND WILLIAMSON is a successor in interest to The American Tobacco Company.

201. BROWN AND WILLIAMSON benefited from slave labor because it was formed out of the American Tobacco Company that benefited from assets acquired by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the uncompensated labor of enslaved Africans. Such use of enslaved Africans was an unfair business practice set forth by Slave Codes created and enforced by states.

202. It does continuous and systematic business in all the jurisdictions in which the cases have been filed.

203. Defendant LIGGETT GROUP INC.(“LIGGETT”)is a corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 Maple Lane, Mebane, North Carolina. It does continuous and systematic business in California.

204. LIGGETT is a successor in interest to the American Tobacco Company. LIGGETT GROUP INC. benefited from slave labor because it was formed out of the American Tobacco Company that benefited from assets acquired by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the uncompensated labor of enslaved Africans.

205. Such use of enslaved Africans was an unfair business practice set forth by Slave Codes created and enforced by states.

206. LIGGETT engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiffs' ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure by the plaintiffs as to the nature and level of participation and profit the defendant derived from slavery.

207. Defendant LOEWS CORPORATION is the parent corporation of Lorillard Tobacco Company with its principal place of business in New York, New York.

208. Upon information and belief, it does continuous and systematic business in all the jurisdictions in which it is sued.

209. LOEWS CORPORATION is a successor in interest to the American Tobacco Company due to its ownership of Lorillard Tobacco Company.

210. LOEWS CORPORATION benefited from slave labor because its subsidiary was formed out of the American Tobacco Company that benefited from assets acquired by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the uncompensated labor of enslaved Africans.

211. Such use of enslaved Africans was an unfair business practice.

212. Defendant CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CO.(“CANADIAN NATIONAL”)is a corporation with its principal place business in Montreal, Canada.

213. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce. It is the successor-in-interest to seven predecessor railroad lines, that were constructed and/or run in part by slave labor.

214. Furthermore, upon information and belief, CANADIAN NATIONAL was approached by members of the general public to verify their historical connection to slavery. They denied any connection thereto.

215. CANADIAN NATIONAL engaged in a self-concealed business enterprise as the plaintiff class and/or plaintiff ancestors would not be aware of the existence of this enterprise without a specific disclosure by the plaintiffs as to the nature and level of participation and profit the defendant derived from slavery.

216. Upon information and belief, its predecessor rail lines: i) knew or should have known that the businesses with which they contracted and/or for whom they provided transportation participated in the slave trade and slavery; that key to the success of those endeavors was the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the enslaved Africans ii) intended to help these businesses to continue in this wrongful practice; and iii) took steps to do so.

217. Defendant SOUTHERN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.(“SOUTHERN MUTUAL”) is an insurance corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. It engages in business that affects interstate commerce.

218. Upon information and belief, SOUTHERN MUTUAL INSURANCE: i) knew or should have known that the persons/businesses for whom they provided insurance did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to further that practice; and iii) by providing insurance policies did so. SOUTHERN MUTUAL INSURANCE aided and abetted those who engaged in the maintenance of slavery through the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

219. Upon information and belief it issued policies on the lives of slaves in Louisiana. Upon information and belief, it does systematic and continuous business in Louisiana.

220. Defendant AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. (“AIG”) is a corporation with its principal place of business located in New York, New York.

221. AIG is successor-in-interest provided instrumentalities of slavery by selling insurance policy to cover the lives of enslaved Africans with slave owners as the beneficiaries.

223. Upon information and belief, AIG'S predecessor in interest: i) knew or should have known that the persons/businesses for whom they provided insurance did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon enslaved Africans; ii) intended to further that practice; and iii) by providing insurance policies did so. These predecessors aided and abetted those who engaged in the maintenance of slavery.

224. In the California Department of Insurance's May 2002 Slavery Era Insurance Registry approximately 200 slaveholders' policies are associated with AIG's predecessor United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York. (U.S. Life). (See, http://www.insurance.ca.gov/SEIR/Slaveholder.htm)

 

The site is available without logging in. However, if you want to post a comment you must login. Your email address will only be use to provide updates on race, racism and the law.

Recent Articles

 

 patreonblack01