First Amendment doesn’t protect racist bankers who called Indians ‘chimps’: judge

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, Apr 20, 2014.

  1. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #1
  2. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #2
    It doesn't really mention the reason for the lawsuit. Are they claiming the first amendment should prevent the use of these emails being admitted as evidence for some part of the case?
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    The attorney for the defendants argued ...

    I looked briefly into the issue of email privacy, and while the boundaries of the law are still being established, it appears that in most cases, work email is not considered private ...

    So it looks to me as if no 1st Amendment violation exists here.
     
  4. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #4
    Amazing how many people fail to understand how the first amendment actually works, including many attorneys. If you want to make comments like this, make them at home with like minded friends. That would be protected by the first amendment. As someone who's dealt with Indians regularly, Indian Americans tend to be VERY difficult customers, but you just don't make these types of comments especially at work.
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  6. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #6

    Yeah, the case comes about from a loan the bank gave these Indian customers. They had trouble repaying the loan, and the bank foreclosed on it. The Indian plaintiffs are alleging racism and unfair business dealings. Racism needs a good degree of proof, and the inflammatory emails are included in the evidence. The bank is trying to keep these emails out for obvious reasons. They tried a first amendment argument, which the judge denied. The other bit was that the defense attorney took more than a year to make this argument, so the judge also denied the motion to exclude th emails because they took too long.
     
  7. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    They tried to use the 1st Amendment to keep evidence from court.

    Neither do I, really, but it was argued that it had something to do with it.
     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    Yeah, I'm trying to figure that out myself. The 1st doesn't protect your right to keep your conversations private, so it's not that. I guess the lawyer was trying to claim that the government was using what his clients said against them in court, which would be a violation the 1st. Thing is, it isn't the government holding them accountable. It's the plaintiffs. So it doesn't work there, either.

    The only thing that makes sense is that, pretty much like you said, it was a longshot attempt on the lawyers part to suppress some really damning evidence that didn't work out.
     
  9. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9
    Ah that makes more sense. Thanks. In terms of racism, it matters whether racist beliefs caused the plaintiffs to be subjected to some difference in terms or business decisions. It's strange hearing the first amendment invoked to prevent the use of evidence.


    Yeah that sounds like a silly argument. I mean it should protect their rights to make jerk comments, but this relates to whether those comments help prove some influence on business terms. No one is really telling them that they can't use jerk-speak.
     
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #10
    Don't know about this ... I'd probably compare the bankers to a bunch of bonobos myself.
     
  11. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #11
    Bonobos are the laid back hippies of the jungle. They love everybody.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    If I read that correctly, it implies that the emails are not private sighing the workers. Not between the CO and the customers , your boss can see your email history if he wants, but your customers don't have access to your e-mail history
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    That is true, but a lot of things come out during discovery prior to a trial.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    The guys did not pay their bills & had to deal with foreclosure. No reason for a trial to begin with, Nothing racist there IMHO
     
  15. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    Racist or not, not paying your bills tends to result in a negative outcome.

    This is news?
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    It's never that simple. Were they making attempts to pay the bill, but were having trouble paying the full amount on a month to month basis? If they had missed entire payments, how much time had passed since their last? One month? Two? Three? Did they agree to a forbearance beforehand?

    Foreclosures generally tend to happen at the end of an extended period of missed payments and non-cooperation. From the sounds of things, this just happened suddenly, and took them entirely by surprise.
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    I wasn't questioning that, but if this case was that simple it probably wouldn't make it to court, much less involve extensive pre-trial work.
     
  18. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    everyone is just "assuming" w/o those details.

    most of the clientele appears to be of the same race as those who had their property foreclosed
    if the bankers were truly racist they would not have granted the loan in the first place, going to assume here & state that other Indians are not being foreclosed upon since they are not suing.

    ----------

    bankers made stupid comments & a judge sees fit to take things to trial over it.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    And this. It's not like someone can scream "that's UNFAIR", and suddenly force an expensive jury trial on everyone (well...there are exceptions). For a lawyer to even consider going against something like a bank in what seems like a bog standard loan dispute, let alone a judge, the plaintiff has to lay a compelling case in front of them, it has to have Prima Facie.

    If it goes to court, there's (usually) a good case behind it.
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Yeah, we're all assuming. None of us have all the facts. But like I said above, loan disputes don't go before a jury without good reason.
     
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #21
    Racist political speech is protected. But, that would seem to be totally unrelated to what actually happened.

    And, even the strongest of privacy advocates would consider business mail or email regarding a business decision (what to do about a delinquent loan) to be potential evidence in a lawsuit.

    The first amendment argument is a red herring.
     
  22. TechGod, Apr 20, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2014

    TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #22
    I would like to say, older generation of Indians. while I have not lived in India since I was 2, the last time I visited india(3 years back) some of the kids were face palming so hard over their parents behaviour.

    Such a shame that the older generation have potentially ruined the reputation of the younger generation which are far more polite.
     
  23. Grey Beard macrumors 65816

    Grey Beard

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Location:
    The Antipodes.
    #23
    TG, I am fairly sure that this thread is in relation to Native American Indians, not the indians from India as they are in your case.

    KGB:cool:
     
  24. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #24
    No, it's about Indian immigrants to the US. Not Native Americans.
     
  25. Grey Beard, Apr 20, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2014

    Grey Beard macrumors 65816

    Grey Beard

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Location:
    The Antipodes.
    #25
    This; from the article made me believe they referred to American-Indians.

    KGB:cool:

    Lotus Bank, Inc. — located in Novi, CA — serves a heavily Indian-American clientele and of its 17 directors, a majority are Indian. Nonetheless, bank President Neal Searle and Executive Vice President Richard Bauer are charged with mistreating Indian customers and the emails — in which the two men referred to Indian-Americans as “chimps” and said “the only good Indian is a dead Indian” — are being considered as evidence by the plaintiffs.

    But, on reading further and seeing their surnames of Takhar and Gupta, I may have to side with you.
    KGB
     

Share This Page