As to 5, eg.   (with implications for 1 and 2)

 OPPOSITION TO MOTIO.N TO DISMISS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

KUNTA KINTE (Deceased) by his heir-at-law Plaintiff

V

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Defendant

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, by and through his attorney, who opposes defendant’s motion to dismiss as follows:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, not a resident of the state of Virginia and the heir-at-law of decedant, brought this survival action against defendant as the owner of certain property located in the county of Patrick Virginia, based upon jurisdiction in rem, and diversity of citizenship. Defendant has moved to dismiss, alleging, inter alia, the running of the statute of limitations, the lack of plaintiff’s standing to sue, and the immunization of any alleged wrongdoing by defendant’s predecessors in interest in the property

. FACTS The following facts are admitted by defendant’s pleadings or uncontroverted by affidavit: Decedant Kinte was the victim of a kidnapping occurring in or about the town of Jufferee, The Gambia, Africa, in the year 1767. Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, hereinafter Reynolds, conspired with Kinte’s kidnappers to hold him in wrongful imprisonment, and involuntary servitude from that date until his death. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, Reynolds received custody of Kinte from his kidnappers or their accomplices, and maintained him in unlawful imprisonment, transporting him from Annapolis Maryland, to the property which Reynolds owned in Patrick County, Virginia, where he continued in unlawful imprisonment until his death. Plaintiff, the heir-at-law of Kinte, brought this action within one year of attaining his majority.

STANDING DNA samples taken from the remains of Kinte, which are located in the graveyard adjacent to the property over which plaintiff seeks to assert jurisdiction, prove that plaintiff is the lineal descendant of decedant. Plaintiff’s standing to bring this action on behalf of the estate of Kinte arises out of the common law of survival of actions

. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has run on this cause of action is without merit, as Kinte himself was imprisoned from the moment of Reynolds tortious entrance into the conspiracy until his death, tolling the commencement of the running of the statute. Such being the case, plaintiff, upon reaching majority, had the statutory period of time within which to bring his complaint, and has done so.

IMMUNIZATION Defendant pleads as a bar to plaintiff’s recovery, the doctrine that however wrongful the conduct of Reynolds’ co-conspirators in effecting the kidnap of Kinte in Africa, the transaction occurring in Annapolis whereby Reynolds took custody of Kinte, being there lawful under the prevailing statutes of the then colony of Virginia, is now beyond reach of plaintiff’s plea for redress. Existing jurisprudence arising from the imprisonment and involuntary servitude inflicted upon several people by the German government circa 1933-1945 vitiates defendants’ claim that any statutory sanction, where contrary to the mandates of equity, can protect a wrongdoer (or the property which was the instrument of such wrongdoing), from answering in damages for the tortious imprisonment and involuntary labor of an individual.

Throughout history, there have always been victims and victimizers.  Most of us I daresay can count as ancestors members of both groups.  If we in the new world are really serious about balancing the scales, shouldn't we give all the land back to the Indians and sail back to Europe?  Such a solution is not just impractical it's impossible.

When it comes to reparations for slavery, there are many other descendants of victims of terrible injustice in America besides African-Americans.  Likewise, there are descendants of victimizers besides those whose great great grandparents owned slaves.  Should people who count as ancestors people who were child laborers be afforded damages from the descendants of sweatshop operators?  Do the great great grandchildren of Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Mellon owe damages to those whose ancestors were slain in the Haymarket massacre?

Basing payouts on one particular injustice that a bloody war ended over a century and a half ago - may move us closer to justice but it is not justice.  What we need to do and what Sanders advocates is to guarantee all Americans the necessities of a happy life - shelter, food, clothing, education, healthcare, meaningful employment, and a secure retirement.  Likewise, we need to implement a progressive tax structure that ensures that nobody can amass extraordinary wealth or pass down so much that a permanent leisure class can exist.

Finally, victims alive today who were denied redress in the past due to racism - I'm thinking lynching survivors, redlining victims, etc. - should have the right to recover damages.

I understand the emotional tug of Coates's argument and he makes it very well.  Slavery offends us to a degree that even sweatshop labor, exploitive mining operators, and indentured servitude do not.  If your view is that slavery stands apart as a greater evil than all the other sins committed in the New World - with the exception of the genocide of the Native Americans - I agree.

But I also say that those alive today with the greatest need are the ones on whom we must direct our attention.  The neediest include many African-Americans but they also include whites, Asians, Latinos, and people of mixed ancestry.  They're the ones we have an absolute moral duty to help now.

Regarding Rick Snyder and the poisoning of Flint's water:

Snyder . . . has denied that Clinton and her appearance on Maddow had anything to do with his decision to ask for federal funds. "Gov. Snyder announced the state was coordinating with FEMA days before and [was] dealing with the crisis on Thursday, not watching political talk shows," Snyder spokesman Dave Murray told the Washington Examiner. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-flint_us_569e66c3e4b...

Regarding whether, after setting forth clearly and concisely his position on reparations, Sanders also should have made available a spokesperson to respond more fully to Coates's question about reparations:

Coates noted that he reached out to the Sanders campaign, so he could QUESTION THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF but received no response — however, his article did receive a response from a prominent Sanders supporter, Killer Mike, who took to Twitter to refute the premises of Coates’ argument.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/21/killer_mike_targets_ta_nehisi_coates_for... (emphasis supplied).

Most Americans oppose Socialism, so while he's educating them on Socialism he can educate them on reparations - should be easy for a man if his stature, no?