2257 2005 Specifically Plaintiffs argue that the City concealed its role in the

2257 2005 specifically plaintiffs argue that the city

  • Griggs
  • ECON 101
  • tukiev
  • 56
  • 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 34 - 36 out of 56 pages.

2257 (2005). Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the City concealed its role in the Riot through the convening of a Grand Jury that blamed the Riot on the victims, the failure to investigate the riot or prosecute persons who committed murder or arson, and the disappearance of official files from the Oklahoma National Guard, the County Sheriff, and the Tulsa Police Department. Plaintiffs further support this argument with the language from [title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes], § 8000.1.4 referring to a "conspiracy of silence" that "served the dominant interests of the state." Id. at *24. 214 Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d 117, 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). [Vol. 74:68
Statutes of Limitations: A Policy Analysis the Vichy and Nazi regimes" to loot the plaintiffs' assets, which promoted discrimination against Jewish citizens and disabled them from being able to finance their escape from Nazi persecution and avoid being sent to concen- tration camps where they were killed. 215 The plaintiffs alleged that, after the war, the "defendants unjustly refused to return the looted assets, enriched themselves with the derivative profits, and concealed information, value, and derivative profits of the looted assets from the plaintiffs. '216 The plaintiffs also accused the defendants of "misrepresenting to plaintiffs and the general public [the defendants'] role during the Vichy government and their contin- ued retention of assets; and failing to provide an accounting and restitution to plaintiffs. '217 Various commissions were formed to provide relief to victims of the Hol- ocaust-related atrocities, to supervise banking institutions' compliance, and to conciliate amongst the parties. The primary commission was an indepen- dent one organized by the French government, "comprised of historians, dip- lomats, lawyers, and magistrates to 'study the conditions in which goods may have been illicitly acquired... and to publish proposals' regarding redress of Holocaust-era atrocities in France. '218 This commission generated a report that provided substantial relevant evidence to the plaintiffs' case. 2 19 Conse- quently, the plaintiffs argued that "defendants should be equitably estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense because plaintiffs have been kept in ignorance of vital information necessary to pursue their claims without any fault or lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs. ' 22 0 The plaintiffs contended that the defendants engaged in a "policy of systematic and histori- cal denial and misrepresentation" and that such deception misled and de- prived the plaintiffs from knowing or successfully proving their claims. 221 The court unequivocally accepted the plaintiffs' equitable argument, conclud- ing that the defendants' deception should not permit them to hide behind the statute of limitations: Should the alleged facts be supported by evidence in discovery, there is certainly a strong undercurrent to the issues at bar sug- gesting the [sic] a deceptive and unscrupulous deprivation of both assets and of information substantiating plaintiffs' and their ances- tors'

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture