ödevimi kontrol etmek isteyen var mı gramer hatası cart hatası curt hatası ?

[Giovanni]

Amistad Case Brief


Citation

Lieutenant Gedney v. Connecticut State Government

Henry Green & Pelatiah Fordham v. Connecticut State Government

Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez v. Connecticut State Government

U.S. Attorney representing the Spanish Government v. Connecticut State Government

Slaves v. Government of Spain

José Antonio Tellincas w/ Aspe and Laca v. Connecticut State Government


Facts

A Group of Africans were kidnapped from their homeland by a Spanish schooner called La Amistad. Three Spanish captains of the ship had their own slaves. They all claimed those slaves as their own goods and property by a certain pass or document signed by the Governor General of Cuba. Before the arrival of the ship to her destination, Africans revolted, killed the captain. On the 26th of August vessel was discovered by a U.S. Lieutenant called Gedney. Gedney brought those negroes before the district court of Connecticut.




Legal History

Lieutenant Gedney filed a lawsuit for the slaves and cargo on board La Amistad
as property seized on the high seas.

Henry Green and Pelatiah Fordham filed a lawsuit for salvage, claiming that they discovered La Amistad first.

Ruiz and Montez filed lawsuits requesting that their slaves and cargo be returned to them.

The Office of the United States Attorney for the Connecticut District, representing the Spanish Government, filed a lawsuit that the slaves, cargo, and vessel be returned as the property of Spain.

Antonio Vega, vice-consul of Spain, filed a lawsuit for the slave Antonio, on the grounds that this slave was his property.

The slaves, who denied that they were slaves, property, or that the court could return them to the government of Spain.

José Antonio Tellincas, with Aspe and Laca, who claimed goods on board La Amistad.
Africans defended that that they were native born Africans; born free, and still of right has to be free and not slaves; that they were, on or about the 15th of April, 1839, unlawfully kidnapped, and forcibly taken on board a vessel on the coast of Africa, which was engaged in the slave trade, and were transported to Cuba, to be sold as slaves.






District Court decisions were as following :

· It allowed Lt. Gedney to claim one-third of the property on board La Amistad.
· It dismissed the claims of Green and Fordham for salvage.
· It dismissed the claims of Ruiz and Montez.
· It rejected the claim of the U.S. Attorney, argued on behalf of the Spanish minister, for the restoration of the slaves.
· It allowed the Spanish vice-consul to claim the slave Antonio.
· It allowed Tellincas, Aspe, and Laca to claim one-third of the property.
· It ordered that the slaves be delivered to the custody of the President of the United States for transportation to Africa, since the slaves were, in fact, free.

And by the request of Van Buren, case appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court. He challenged all decisions of the court except the concession of slave Antonio.

On March 9 Joseph Story declared that Africans were never legal properties. Supreme Court decided their dismissal from the custody of the court, the immediate transportation to their homeland after they are delivered to the president. Upon this decision 35 man and boys and 3 girls were freed.

Issues

1 - Are those negroes -subjects of the case- legal and lawful properties of Ruiz and Montez ?

1a - Is the court bound to deliver negroes up, according to the treaty of 1795, with Spain, which has in this particular been continued in full force, by the treaty of 1819, ratified in 1821?



Holdings

1 - Those Africans are not and were never lawful properties of Spanish captains Ruiz and Montez.

2 - The court isn't bound to restore the slaves to their false owner(s).



Reasoning

1 - Article 9 says : "All ships and merchandise, of what nature so ever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers, on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care of and restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof." If those negroes were lawfully held, I see no reason why claimants wouldn't request the restoration of their rights in terms of Article 9. Beyond that, due to public records of the court, and according to evidences, those negroes were natives of Africa and African slave trade is abolished. So Ruiz and Montez committed a crime and violated laws and treaties of Spain. Africans were kidnapped, unlawfully imported to Cuba.
So those negroes are not slaves but kidnapped Africans and due to Spanish law they are free.

Article 9 says "...in order to be taken care of and restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof". Documents signed by Cuban General may be introduced as the proof of ownership. However, according to the evidences documents signed by Cuban General were used illegally so it is fraud. As they are fraudulent, how they can’t be a valid title of proof


2 – Supposing these African negroes aren’t slaves, forcefully taken and free negroes, the treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory upon them. The treaty with Spain can never take away the equal rights of all foreigners. These negroes shall be freed; and that the Spanish treaty is no obstacle before their rights.

Rule of Law

ART. VI.
Each Party shall endeavor by all means in their power to protect and defend all Vessels and other effects belonging to the Citizens or Subjects of the other, which shall be within the extent of their jurisdiction by sea or by land, and shall use all their efforts to recover and cause to be restored to the right owners their Vessels and effects which may have been taken from them within the extent of their said jurisdiction whether they are at war or not with the Power whose Subjects have taken possession of the said effects.
ART. VIII.
In case the Subjects and inhabitants of either Party with their shipping whether public and of war or private and of merchants be forced through stress of weather, pursuit of Pirates, or Enemies, or any other urgent necessity for seeking of shelter and harbor to retreat and enter into any of the Rivers, Bays, Roads, or Ports belonging to the other Party, they shall be received and treated with all humanity, and enjoy all favor, protection and help, and they shall be permitted to refresh and provide themselves at reasonable rates with victuals and all things needful for the sustenance of their persons or reparation of their Ships, and prosecution of their voyage; and they shall no ways be hindered from returning out of the said Ports, or Roads, but may remove and depart when and whither they please without any let or hindrance.
ART. IX.
All Ships and merchandise of what nature so ever which shall be rescued out of the hands of any Pirates or Robbers on the high seas shall be brought into some Port of either State and shall be delivered to the custody of the Officers of that Port in order to be taken care of and restored entire to the true proprietor as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property there of.

[Werewolf]

Emeğe saygı, +rep üstat.

[Quel-Thul]

güzel paylaşım saol dostum

[medusa748]

hm wikipedia kokusu alıyorum biraz :P
ama iyi olmuş

[Marl0_on]

ay kIlik yor terazi. hello.

[Misafir Guest]

azcık ciddiyet ya okumcaksanız bile boş muhabbet yapmayın adam ciddi bişey sormuş

[Lopeth]

Ciddiyet ?

This Is

GARBAGE

[Asteroth]

Performansında düşüş görüyorum Lopeth, en azından bir resim beklerdim.

10 üzerinden 4 veriyoruz ve geçiyoruz Petek Dinçöz'e.

[Pluton]

bizsiziarariz, peki biz sizi ararız

[PassivE_KesH]

kesn hata vardır inanıyorum bir daha kontrol et =)

[Aykan]

said:

10 üzerinden 4 veriyoruz ve geçiyoruz Petek Dinçöz'e.

ahuuhauhahuau

[rap_antikor]

lan bunu okuycaama kendi ödevimi yaparım daha ii..