Harvard Lawyers Reflect Spirit of American Revolution

U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard Lawyers Reflect Spirit of American Revolution, says Dr. Goodluck Diigbo

MOSOP President and Spokesman, Dr. Goodluck Diigbo has welcomed the filing by the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic of an amicus curiae brief with U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. as a significant legal American enlightenment action.

Diigbo said: “This Harvard amicus curiae brief will remind all American citizens and the United States government of the very core values that led to the American Revolution, which provoked a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations that ultimately rejected colonial tactics in order to break free from the British Empire.”

“The Ogoni people are not yet free from the legacy of the British Empire. This is illustrated by the corrupt system of government in Nigeria. The Nigerian government is continually conspiring with multinational oil companies led by the Anglo-Royal Dutch/Shell to commit irreparable environmental and human rights violations.” Diigbo maintained.

“In all of our collective pursuit; any measure of justice offered by the U.S. Supreme Court will conserve, not disfigure the spirit of the American revolution; even though, it can never bring back life or repair the eternal damage that the Ogoni have suffered,” Diigbo stated.

“I salute these Harvard lawyers of conscience as the pride of American self-government,” Diigbo added.

Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic has submitted a supplemental amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of petitioners in a major Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Nine eminent legal historians joined the brief as amici: William R. Casto, Charles Donahue, Robert W. Gordon, Nasser Hussain, Stanley N. Katz, Michael Lobban, Jenny S. Martinez, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Clinical Directors Susan Farbstein and Tyler Giannini served as counsel for the amici, who argue that Congress, when enacting the statute, did not intend to restrict its territorial reach. Rather, the ATS was passed to address universally-condemned violations of the law of nations, such as piracy.
Resources:
1. http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2012/06/19_ihrc-files-brief-with-supreme-court.html
2. http://studytourus1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/28/11916674-british-prime-minister-david-cameron-acting-dangerously-against-nigeria

ENDS

© Scoop Media