The House of Kerr of Ardgowan

The Grandfather Kerr Clan


Clergy Tartan

HOME  |  2005 EVENTS | BARON COURT | HOUSEHOLD | CLAN MEMBERSHIP | CLAN MUSIC | REGALIA & RELICS | NEWS


HOME


 DR. KERR'S CAREER TESTIMONY


 DR. KERR'S ARMS & TARTAN


 TULSA RACE WAR:
BACKGROUND


 TULSA RACE WAR OF 1921


 COURTHOUSE LYNCH MOB


 DR. KERR CONFRONTS MOB


 THE GREENWOOD BLACK COMMUNITY


 SANCTUARY FOR THE GREENWOOD BLACKS


. DESTRUCTION OF GREENWOOD


 MAN SAVED FROM LYNCHING


 DR. KERR REJECTS 'INTER-RACIAL COMMITTEE'


 LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE GREENWOOD BLACK


 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF RACE WAR


 DR. KERR AND THE 'COMMON PLAN'


 DR. KERR OFFERS RESIGNATION


 DR. KERR CONFRONTS TULSA LEADERSHIP


 OIL RICH TULSANS


 SCOTTISH CLANS & WHITE TRASH


 KERR REMAINS IN TULSA


 THE WORLD'S FIRST BAG PIPE OPERA


 OUTLINE


Legal Analysis of Race War and possible case for injured Greenwood Blacks under §1 of Federal 1870 Ku Klux Act  --  predicated on future Congressional Declaration repudiating City's officials:

 On an issue-by-issue basis, the four Presbyterian lawyers gave Dr. Kerr the following analysis of the legal situation resulting from the 1921 Tulsa Race War:  

The 31st May 1921  editorial by Tulsa Tribune's publisher Richard Lloyd Jones 'To Lynch a Nigger Tonight' and The Tribune's false accusation that the Black youth had scratched the elevator operator and torn her clothes constituted an 'incitement to riot' under State Law (21 O.S. §§1320.2, 1363)  ...  which the Tulsa Civil Authorities refused to stop    or later to indict  Richard  Lloyd  Jones,  who, together with the oil magnates and Tulsa's country club civic Establishment, is above the law.           

The Tulsa Police Department failed to perform their statutory duty  under State law  (22 O.S. §§101, 104) to prevent the unlawfully assembly of a lynch mob at the Courthouse for the unlawful purpose incited by the Tribune's  editorial.  

Tulsa's  Keystone  Cops  tacitly  consent

to  Courthouse  31  May  1921 

attempted  lynching  of  Black  youth  

The Tulsa Police failed to perform their statutory duty under Oklahoma Law to disperse the unlawfully assembled lynch mob in the 'Name of the State' and to arrest all persons refusing to leave the Courthouse area:  22 O.S. §§ 101,102; 193 F.2d 760;  21 O.S. §§ 1314, 1315,  1317  

The Tulsa Police failed to perform their statutory duty under State law (22 O.S. §103) to command the aid of all persons present or within the County to disperse the unlawful assembly of the lynch mob:  The Greenwood Black Veterans would have been obvious proper persons from whom to request assistance to disperse the lynch mob at the Courthouse. See 22 O. S. §§91, 105.  

The Tulsa Police gave 'tacit consent' to the proposed lynching of the falsely accused Black youth incited by the Tribune by abdicating their statutory duty imposed by Oklahoma law to maintain law,  order,  and due process of law       by refusing to disperse the Courthouse lynch mob:  22 O.S. §§ 101, 104  

The  City  of  Tulsa  supplied  the  petrol  to  do  this

The  lynch  mob  of  Tulsa's  most  upstanding  citizens  did  the  rest:

¿ With such 'upstanding  citizens'    who  needs  criminals ?  

The acts taken by the armed Greenwood Black Veterans to make a lawful resistance in defence of the falsely accused Black Youth to prevent his lynching incited by the Tribune at the hands of the unlawfully assembled Courthouse lynch mob were completely legal under Oklahoma Law, now codified as Title 21 Oklahoma Statutes §643(3); 22 O.S. §33;  6 Okla Law Review 231.  

The armed Greenwood Black Veterans acted as 'reasonable men' under Oklahoma Law in response to the concrete situation existing in Tulsa on the night of Tuesday, 31st May 1921 re  the actual possibility of a lynching attempt upon the falsely accused Black youth as incited by The Tribune.  

The armed Greenwood Black Veterans possessed a 'legal privilege'  under Oklahoma Law (6 Okla Law Review 231-233)to uphold the public policy of law, order, and due process of law by acting to protect the Courthouse and to prevent the crime of murder incited by  The Tribune.  

The lawful actions (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231) of the armed Greenwood Black Veterans to uphold public policy and to offer a lawful resistance sufficient  to prevent commission of a crime (lynching) can not be characterized as an 'overt act' of 'armed insurrection'   under Oklahoma or Federal laws.  

The legality of acts taken by the armed Greenwood Black Veterans to prevent a lynching (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231)cannot be legitimately characterised as a 'Riot', 'Rout', 'Unlawful Assembly' or for an 'Unlawful  Purpose' as defined by Oklahoma Law:  21 O.S. §§1311, 1313. 1314. 1317  

Tulsa's  buffoon Police  Department had  actual  knowledge  of 

the lawful  actions  of  Greenwood  Veterans under State Law  

From repeated telephone calls made by both the leaders of the Greenwood Veterans as well as by the Greenwood Pastors beginning in the early afternoon of Tuesday, May 31, 1921,  the Tulsa Police Department and the Sheriff's Office had advanced actual knowledge of the legal purpose of the Greenwood Veterans under State law (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231):  To offer a lawful resistance sufficient to protect the Courthouse from the lynch mob and to prevent the murder of the Black youth falsely accused by The Tulsa Tribune.  (The Police telephone log in which such calls were recorded was later intentionally destroyed by the City Government to cover up its actual knowledge.)  

The Tulsa City Government's fraudulent characterisation of the completely lawful acts of the Greenwood Black Veterans as a 'Negro Insurrection'  constituted a  deliberate legal error ...  as a pretext for justifying the City's policy of violently repressing the Blacks of Greenwood in what amounted to a Racial War       to satisfy the spites of Tulsa's wealthiest citizens swarming about the Police Station on the night of Tuesday, 31st May 1921.  

The City of Tulsa's subsequent violent repression of this non-existent 'Negro Insurrection' as city policy constituted a deliberate legal wrong committed by the City Government against the Black population of Greenwood on a deliberately fraudulent pretext.  See 21 O.S. §1401  re "Arson".  

The City of Tulsa  was guilty of 'criminal negligence'  by giving 'special commissions' to act as 'Emergency Police Deputies' to members of the original Courthouse lynch mob swarming at the Police Station and turning them loose upon the Greenwood Black district  ...  with copious amounts of petrol from the City Government's own supplies  ...  and armed with weapons and ammunition commandeered by the Tulsa Police.  

The Greenwood Blacks offered a 'lawful resistance' under Oklahoma Law (21 O.S. §733; 143 P. 870; 132 P. 375; 9 Okla Law Review 60-65) against the invasion of Greenwood authorized by City of Tulsa to suppress as city policy a fraudulently contrived 'Negro Insurrection' (21 O.S. §648; 22  O.S. §34.1).  

Under the American Constitutional system of the 'division of governmental powers', American courts are constitutionally required to give judicial deference  to official executive acts of public officials made within the scope of their official ministerial discretion:    American courts cannot substitute their own opinion of a situation for that made by public officials on site.  This constitutional doctrine requires American Courts  to give judicial deference to the City's official  lie  of a 'Negro Insurrection'.   This  allows  the City of Tulsa to defeat any court case for damages … on the grounds that the armed suppression of Greenwood was necessary to defeat the fictitious 'Negro Insurrection'.  

Simply put, the constitutionally required judicial deference which American courts,  even the United States Supreme Court, are required to give to the official lie by the City of Tulsa of the existence of a 'Negro Insurrection' as legal justification for Tulsa City Government's murder of hundreds of Greenwood Blacks and arson of their entire community constitutionally bars the injured Greenwood Blacks from receiving effective legal relief under Sec. 1 of the Federal 1870 Ku Klux Act  (42 U.S.C.A. §1983)  in any case which these injured Blacks might bring against the City Government and its confederates for violating their Federal constitutional and statutory rights under colour of Oklahoma State law re the police powers of municipalities:  

Judicial  deference  to  City's  official  lie  of  a  'Negro  Insurrection'  perpetually  bars  Blacks  from  recovering  damages 

deliberately  inflicted  by  City  of  Tulsa:

¿ Is  this  just ?  

•Even sympathetic Federal Courts would be obliged to dismiss a case brought under Sec. 1 of the 1879 Ku Klux ACT (42 U.S.C.A. §1983)  by injured Greenwood Plaintiffs on the constitutionally required grounds of judicial deference to the official determination made by the responsible public safety authorities of the City of Tulsa made within their scope of executive or 'ministerial' discretion that there was, in fact, a 'Negro Insurrection':   

•Under American constitutional doctrines of the 'separation of powers', not even the United States Supreme Court can substitute its own judgement for the judgement made Tulsa City Officials on site on the night of Tuesday, 31st May 1921.  

Such judicial deference creates a continuing legal situation  having the following juridical  effects:  

•The claims of the injured Greenwood Blacks under Sec. 1 of the 1870 Ku Klux Act (42 U.S.C.A. §1983)  can never become res judicata  as  completed  legal acts over-and-done-with  at the time of commission  due  to this judicial deference which must be given to the City's official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection' as a discretionary ministerial act which constitutionally perpetually bars American Courts from granting effective legal relief to the aggrieved Greenwood Blacks injured by the City of Tulsa in violation of Sec 1 of the Ku Klux Act.  

•The running of the statute of limitations on the claims of injured Greenwood Blacks against the City of Tulsa and its confederates under Sec. 1 of the Federal 1870 Ku Klux Act (42 U.S.C.A. §1983) is  perpetually tolled or suspended  as  long  as  the constitutionally required judicial deference to the City of Tulsa's official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection'  in its capacity as a discretionary ministerial act remains in effect: Proscription cannot 'run' if aggrieved parties are barred by such judicial  deference to the City's official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection' from recovering damages.  

•The Tulsa City Government's ‘deliberate’ legal error in fraudulently asserting there was a 'Negro Insurrection' perpetually instituted the beginning of a continuing  legal situation,  which renews itself  --  continually, perpetually, and repeatedly  --  each day that such judicial deference by the Courts must continue to be given to the City's official lie.  

•The claims of the injured Greenwood Blacks under Sec. 1 of the Federal Ku Klux Act  remain  in  a perpetual state  of  suspended animation  due  to  such constitutionally-mandated judicial deference to the City's official lie  but  can never be lost by prescription or the running of any statute of limitations  --  which  can never 'run' due to the constitutional judicial deference which American courts must give to the City of Tulsa's official  lie  of  a  'Negro Insurrection'  as a pretext for the City Government's armed suppression of Greenwood.  I.e., the statute of limitation can  'run' only when one is capable of receiving effective legal relief from a court seized with jurisdiction to grant such under the statute.  

•Because this continuing legal situation arises from the constitutional  judicial deference  which American courts must give to the City of Tulsa's  official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection'  in its capacity as a discretionary 'ministerial act',  mere  private knowledge of the City's official lie does not constitute 'discovery' of the City's fraudulent concealment of a cause of action by the injured Greenwood Blacks against the City Government under Sec 1 of the Federal 1870 Ku Klux Act for violation of Federal constitutional and statutory rights re 'equal protection of the laws', etc.    

•Due to the constitutional  nature  of the judicial deference which courts must give to the City's official lie as a discretionary act,  only  a Congressional Declaration formally repudiating the City's official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection' as a deliberate legal error  and repudiating the City's armed suppression of this fictional 'Negro Insurrection' as a deliberate legal wrong  is  legally  capable  of  discovering  a  cause of action for the injured Greenwood Blacks under Sec. 1 of the Federal 1870 Ku Klux Act   ...  presently  concealed  by the judicial deference which must be given to the City's  official  lie of a 'Negro Insurrection'.  

•Instituted by the constitutional judicial deference which American courts must give to the City of Tulsa's official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection'  as a ministerial discretionary act providing the City Government's legal pretext for the armed suppression of Greenwood,  this continuing legal situation  continues  in existence  perpetually  and  indefinitely   ...   until  such  time  as  the  American Congress  enacts a Congressional Declaration repudiating the City's official lie and armed suppression of a fictitious 'Negro Insurrection' made pursuant to this official lie for violation by Tulsa's City Government   of the Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Greenwood Veterans and the Greenwood  Black  population.  

•Because the City of Tulsa's deliberate legal error and wrong conceals a strong case for the recovery of damages by the injured Greenwood Blacks under §1 of the Federal 1871 Ku Klux Act (42 U.S.C.A. §1983) for racialist injuries inflicted upon Blacks by local American city and county units of government under colour of State law in violation of Federal constitutional and statutory guarantees,    any future enactment of the needed Congressional Declaration will 'discover' this case    which presently lies hidden behind the judicial deference which American courts must give to the City's fraudulent assertion of a ‘Negro Insurrection’.   Analogously see 782 F2d 227;  793 F2d 304;  482 US 64.  

•Simply put, the constitutional judicial deference which  all American Courts must give  City of Tulsa's  official  lie  of  a  'Negro Insurrection'  made within the  official ministerial discretionary scope of Tulsa's  authorised  public  safety policymakers  continually  conceals a  good case (511 F2d 504 at 510) for damages against the City of Tulsa by the injured Greenwood Blacks  under  42 U.S.C.A. §1983 for deprivation of Federal constitutional and statutory rights made by the City Government under colour of State Law:   Only  a  Congressional Declaration can remove this judicial deference  and  'discover'  a  case under 42 U.S.C.A. §1983.  

•This continuing legal situation  permanently denying effective legal relief to the racially oppressed Greenwood Blacks injured by the City of Tulsa during the 1921 Tulsa Race War, will continue unabated until the American Congress enacts a Congressional Declaration:  

Declaring the City's fraudulent characterisation of the lawful actions of the Greenwood Veterans under Oklahoma Law (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231) as a 'Negro Insurrection' to be a deliberate legal error;   and  

Declaring the City's violent suppression of this non-existent 'Negro Insurrection' to be a deliberate legal wrong.  

•Enactment of  a  Congressional Declaration officially repudiating  the City of Tulsa's  official lie  of a non-existent 'Negro Insurrection' as a deliberate  legal  error  in violation of the Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Greenwood Veterans and population and  the  City's suppression of this fictitious 'Negro Insurrection' as city policy to be a deliberate legal wrong in violation of the Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Greenwood Blacks  will give rise to the following:  

•'Discovery' of  cause  of  action for the injured Greenwood Blacks (or their heirs)  under Sec. 1 of the 1870 Ku Klux Act (42 U.S.C.A. §1983)upon the enactment of the needed Congressional Declaration.    

•The statute of limitations for the purposes of bringing a case for damages against the City of Tulsa and its  confederates will run from the date of enactment of this Congressional Declaration  --  not  from the date of the injuries on 31 May/1st June, 1921.  

•Because this  deprivation of justice to injured Greenwood Blacks is a continuing legal situation  instituted by the judicial deference which American courts must constitutionally give to the City's  official lie of a 'Negro Insurrection' in its capacity as a 'discretionary ministerial act',  the injured Greenwood Blacks (or their heirs and successors-in-interest)  will  also be entitled to invoke whatever new statutory or judicial (established via case law) remedies  which may have arisen between the date of such injuries in 1921 and the date of enactment of the needed Congressional Declaration.  

•Under Tulsa's 'commission'  form of city government,  Tulsa's Police and Fire Commissioner, the Chief of Police, and the Police Inspector constituted  the  City of Tulsa's   responsible  public  safety policymakers,  whose actions under colour of State law re the authority of municipalities in formulating city policy were  legally  sufficient  under  Sec. 1 of the 1870 Ku Klux  Act  to render the City of Tulsa  financially  liable  for the wrongful deaths and property damage wrought by the City Government  upon the Greenwood  Black  community as a  constitutional tort  (delict)  under Sec. 1 of the Federal 1879 Ku Klux Act  in express  violation of the Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Greenwood Black population re 'equal protection of the laws' and of 'equal privileges and immunities under the laws'.

See  42 U.S.C.A. §1983  when read in conjunction with 485 U.S. 112;  879 F2d 1573;  974 F2d 293;  729 FSupp 625;  981 F2d 1537;  628 F2d 915;  972 F2d 992;  966 F2d 13;  476 F2d  238;  497 F2d 197;  468 FSupp 270;  436 FSupp 1220;  983 F2d 459;  40 F3d 777;  30 F3d 1332;  27 F3d 1432;  60 F3d 381;  895 F2d 1469;  988 F2d 649;   820 F2d 1245;  889 FSupp 1495;  68 F3d 486;  898 FSupp 1435; 889 FSupp 1284;  830 FSupp 1302;  857 FSupp 711;  916 FSupp 1;  914 FSupp 245;  72 F3d 712;  69 F3d 441;  40 F3d 1176;  38 F3d 282.  

In their capacity under state law as the City of Tulsa's responsible public safety policymakers under Tulsa's 'commission' form of city government,  Tulsa's Police and Fire Commissioner, the Chief of Police, and the Police Inspector adopted and ratified under colour of state law re the 'police powers' of municipalities  the earlier actions of Tulsa's Police Department concerning the following  in violation of the Federal Constitutional and statutory rights of  Dick Rowland, the Greenwood Black Veterans, and the Greenwood Black population under Sec. 1 of the 1879 Federal Ku Klux Act  re 'equal protection of the laws' and 'equal privileges and immunities under the laws':  

(1)        Police refusal to confiscate the incendiary  31st May 1921 'lynching edition' of The Tulsa Tribune  containing Richard  Lloyd Jones "To Lynch A Nigger Tonight" editorial constituting an incitement to riot under Oklahoma State laws and to arrest Richard Lloyd Jones for incitement to murder under State law re 21 O.S. §§ 1320.2, 1363 (Richard Lloyd Jones, Tulsa's oil magnates, and Tulsa's elite oil-wealthy civic leadership are  effectively above the law for all practical purposes);   

(2)        Police refusal to prevent a lynch mob from gathering at the Courthouse for the illegal purpose incited by The Tribune editorial as required by State law  re 21 O.S. §§101, 104;   

(3)        Police refusal to disperse the lynch mob once gathered and to arrest all persons who refused to leave for 'route' or 'riot' as required by State  law  re  21 O.S. §§1314, 1315, 1315;  22 O.S. §§101, 102;   

(4)        Police refusal to request the assistance of law-abiding citizens to disperse the lynch mob gathered at the Courthouse  as  required by State law  re  22 O.S. §§91, 103, 105 (The decorated Greenwood Veterans would have been obvious law-abiding citizens to assist the Police,  as they had repeatedly telephoned the Tulsa Police Department offering their assistance);   

(5)        Police 'tacit consent' given to the proposed lynching of Dick Rowland incited by The Tribune's 'lynching editorial' by disappearing from the Courthouse area and abdicating their statutory duties under state law to uphold law, order and due process of law  re  22 O.S. §§101, 104;   

(6)        Having  prior  actual knowledge of the legal purpose of the Greenwood Veterans under State  law  (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231) from repeated telephone calls to the Police Station by both the Greenwood Veterans  and  the Greenwood Pastors,  fraudulent Police characterisation  of the legally privileged actions of the Greenwood Veterans to offer a lawful resistance to protect the Courthouse and to prevent the murder of the falsely accused Black youth  as  an  "overt  act"  of  "civil insurrection"  or as a "Negro Insurrection";   

(7)        Fraudulent Police characterisation of the lawful actions of the armed  Greenwood Veterans under State  law  (21 O.S. §643(3); 22 O.S. §33; 6 Okla Law Review 231)  as  a  'Riot',  'Rout',  'Unlawful Assembly'  or for an 'Unlawful purpose as defined by Oklahoma  law:  21 O.S. §§1311, 1313. 1314. 1317;   

(8)        Criminal  Negligence of the Tulsa Police Department by giving 'special commissions' to act as 'Emergency Police Deputies' to angry racialist members of the original Courthouse lynch mob with blood in their eyes and turning them loose heavily armed and supplied with copious amounts of petrol upon the Greenwood Black district;   

(9)        Police actions in supplying such 'Emergency Police Deputies' and other volunteer members of a 'City Posse' under State law with copious amounts of petrol from the City's own petrol supplies in quantities sufficient to arson every structure in the Greenwood Black district in violation of Oklahoma  law:  21 O.S. §1401  

See  42 U.S.C.A. §1983  when read in conjunction with 859 F2d 797;   596 FSupp 122;  519 FSupp 925;  663 F2d 24;  782 FSupp 110;  476 F2d 238;  79 F3d 56;  15 F3d 443;  872 FSupp 746;  74 F3d 977;  926 FSupp 979;  882 FSupp 1247;  917 FSupp 209;  50 F3d 1186;  81 F3d 988;  76 F3d 1446;  956 F2d 973;  764 FSupp 1308;  10 F3d 501;  988 F2d 649;  974 F2d 293;  742 FSupp 994;  497 F2d 197;  468 FSupp 270;  436 FSupp 1220;  893 FSupp 1086;  896 FSupp 793;  782 FSupp 173;  777 FSupp 116;  922 FSupp 1184.  

•The following city policies adopted and undertaken by Tulsa's Police and Fire Commissioner, the Chief of Police, and the Police Inspector  in their capacity under state law  as the City of Tulsa's  responsible public safety policymakers  acting under colour of State law re the 'police powers' of municipalities  render  the City of Tulsa financially  liable  under  Sec. 1 of the 1870 Federal Ku Klux Act for the wrongful deaths and property damage wrought upon the  entire class of the Greenwood Black community in violation of the Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Greenwood Black population  re  'equal protection of the laws'  and  'equal privileges and immunities under the laws':  

(1)        To declare the lawful actions of the Greenwood Veterans under State law to be a 'Negro Insurrection;  

(2)        To declare that urgent reasons of public safety necessitated as city policy the armed suppression of this fictional 'Negro Insurrection',   

(3)        Specially commissioning members of the original Courthouse lynch mob as 'Emergency Police Deputies'  as  well  as  to specially commission  entire units of local vigilante groups  (such as the World War One 'Home Guards) and to summon all local gunmen to act as a City Posse  under State  law  --  to  execute  city policy to suppress  a  fictitious  'Negro Insurrection';   

(4)        Commandeering  arms and ammunition from local stores with which to arm these armed forces and to supply them with copious amounts of petrol from the City Government's own supplies in quantities sufficient to arson every structure in the Greenwood Black district;   

(5)        Organising these various armed forces into operational units under the command of a regular police officer;   

(6)        To conspire with representatives of Tulsa's civic leadership at the Police Station to arson deliberately large segments of the Greenwood district long desired by the civic leadership for conversion into a rail switchyard, industrial supply, and warehouse district;   

(7)        To draft an operational plan for the invasion and arson of Greenwood in execution of the common plan formulated with Tulsa's civic leadership;   

(8)        To order the local Tulsa unit of the State Militia placed under the control of Tulsa's City Government by the Governor to clear Greenwood of  its Black inhabitants  and to hold them captive at various detention centres;  

(9)        To command the City's  various  volunteer  armed  forces to invade  and  to  arson Greenwood  in execution of the City's operational  plans  in the early hours of Wednesday, 1st June  1921 in violation of State Law  re 21 O.S. §1401;    

(10)       To murder of Greenwood Blacks offering  a  'lawful resistance  under State  law  (21 O.S. §§648, 733;  22  O.S. §34.1; 143 P. 870; 132 P. 375; 9 Okla Law Review 60-65) against the City's invasion of Greenwood to suppress as city policy  a non-existent 'Negro Insurrection'; and   

(11)       To destroy all City records,  plans,  and information concerning the City's invasion and deliberate arson of Greenwood, the City's deliberate injuries and murders inflicted upon unarmed Greenwood Black residents, and the City's secret disposition of the Greenwood dead in places unknown, and the City's deliberate failure to identify the dead  ...  for the purpose of active fraudulent concealment of legal causes of action by the injured Greenwood Blacks against the City Government and its confederates and to obstruct their ability to obtain justice.  

See  42 U.S.C.A. §1983  when read in conjunction with 988 F2d 649;   910 F2d 1422;  890 F2d 1557;  485 US 112;  820 F2d 1245;  729 FSupp 625;  981 F2d 1537;  937 F2d 920;  830 FSupp 1302;  857 FSupp 711;  916 FSupp 1;  865 FSupp 1564;  56 F3d 332;  988 F2d 649;  979 F2d 1342;  57 F3d 253;  983 F2d 459;  946 F2d 1017;  67 F3d 1174;  74 F3d 1239;  40 F3d 777;  973 F2d 386;  30 F3d 1332;  47 F3d 1522;  69 F3d 441;  74 F3d 1150;  971 F2d 708;  60 F3d 381;  991 F2d 1316;  977 F2d 337;  972 F2d 992;  897 F2d 723;  694 FSupp 117;  956 F2d 973;  988 F2d 649;  923 F2d 1474;  966 F2d 13;  476 F2d 238;  856 FSupp 1185;  58 F3d 636;  85 F3d 230;  81 F3d 521;  28 F3d 802;  27 F3d 1432;  57 F3d 680;  38 F3d 282;  873 FSupp 1293;  78 F3d 589;  55 F3d 633; 865 FSupp 681;  882 FSupp 1319;       

The lawyers explained to Dr. Kerr that the process of obtaining the needed Congressional Declaration would be entirely political.   They felt that  the immense economic and political power of the Tulsa-based oil industry of primarily Southern orientation would be focused on blocking it.     

Citing the biased Tulsa June 1921 Grand Jury Report blaming the Greenwood Blacks for the racial war,  the lawyers advised Dr. Kerr that any Congressional Declaration should incorporate an automatic change of venue for the trial of any case arising from Sec. 1 of the 1870 Federal Ku Klux Act:   A local Tulsa jury would automatically reject any case for injuries by the Greenwood Blacks as any recovery would raise their own local taxes.