The Oklahoma Supreme Court denies a request to reconsider Tulsa Race Massacre lawsuit dismissal
The Oklahoma Supreme Court denies a request to reconsider Tulsa Race Massacre lawsuit dismissal
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a request to reconsider its ruling to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the two known living survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a request to reconsider its ruling to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the last two known living survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.
Without comment, seven members of the court on Tuesday turned away the request by 110-year-old Viola Fletcher and 109-year-old Lessie Benningfield Randle to rehear its June ruling that upheld a decision by a district court judge in Tulsato dismiss the case.
Justice James Edmondson would have reheard the case and Justice Richard Darby did not vote.
Fletcher and Randle survived the massacre that is considered one of the worst single acts of violenceagainst Black people in U.S. history.
This is just a slap in the face. But, what can I say, we live in a country that would rather try to pretend racism doesn't exist, instead of fix any of the systemic issues.
Those systemic issues are there by design. And it's a design they want.
The system is not broken. It's working perfectly for the people it was meant to work for. That just isn't most of us.
Could have done the right thing one last time for people who actually experienced it.
Instead, it’ll remain a black mark on the state and now doubly so. We’ll have to wait for the epilogue 100 years from now.
But I suppose you couldn’t have expected much more from a folk who takes pride in stealing land, and doubling down by cheating when doing so.
Without comment.... Cowards.
This is one for the "There's no systemic racism in America!" crowd
"This isn't systemic racism. This is just the justice system." -them probably
Concerning the original case with Judge Caroline Wall in 2023, the following - not from this article - is rather revealing:
Identifying as a Constitutional Conservative, Judge Wall has openly conveyed her commitment to “Exercising justice through Judeo-Christian values,” as stated on her campaign page. However, her principles and ideology have faced close scrutiny in light of her ruling to dismiss the lawsuit regarding the Tulsa Race Massacre.
Many have raised concerns regarding her pledges to “ensure people’s rights to swift justice” and “protect the rights of victims and juries,” given that these promises do not seem to align with her decision to deny the survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre their opportunity for a day in court.
While Judge Caroline Wall’s social media presence appears to be minimal, she does maintain a Twitter account under the handle @realJudgeWall. Notably, Wall follows only three individuals on Twitter, one of them being Donald Trump.
And despite the (then) three centenarians in the original 2023 case attending all hearings, the Judge Caroline Wall was very peculiar in how she conveyed the verdict:
Judge Caroline Wall is also facing scrutiny for the manner in which the dismissal was communicated, or rather, the lack thereof. Attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons revealed that he learned of the dismissal through the news and did not receive formal documentation until after the press conference.
Fast-forwarding to today, I guess it was just convenient in the latest developments to just quietly dismiss the appeal attempt. i.e. since a Trump-inspired judge with Judeo-Christian values saw fit to deny justice to survivors of that horrible attack.
That raw Judeo-Christian hatred is palpable. You can feel it.
What a disappointment.
the world would be a better place without OK
Can't this be taken to US Supreme court? Obviously OK does not want to convict themselves of wrong doing.
That's incredibly old.
And yet, they still refuse to even consider taking any kind of responsibility
I mean, yeah. This is the right decision. There is not a remedy at law for the court to render a decision on.
Why not damages?
You don't even get to damage because there isn't a cause of action. The underlying lawsuit was brought under a public nuisance statute that doesn't apply. This isn't a matter for the courts, at least until the legislature creates a legal theory.