Pending litigation and the sins of our fathers

Are we responsible for the sins of those who came before us?

While I readily understand that biblical passages can be found and put to use for any and all occasions, allow me to offer a review or two from the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (King James Version) reads: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18:20 (King James Version) reads: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."

A vast majority of Ohio county recorders – including recently elected Highland County Recorder Chad McConnaughey – find themselves in a civil rights lawsuit; certainly not entirely – if at all – of their own making.

As The Highland County Press has reported, the plaintiffs are identified only as Jane Doe and John Doe, African-American residents of Hamilton County, Ohio.

They are alleging civil rights violations against some 86 (of 88) Ohio county recorders.

According to the district court filing, Zachary Gottesman, Esq., is representing Jane Doe and John Doe.

I have it on good authority that Zachary Gottesman is a good man and competent attorney. I will not question his motives nor those of his clients.

The plaintiffs "bring this case for an immediate and permanent injunction based on defendants' past, present and continuing violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 3604 and defendants' past, present and continuing violation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985."

• U.S.C. Section 3604 states it shall be unlawful:

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

• U.S.C. Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction requiring recorders to sequester the offensive documents or redact the racially offensive portions. In addition, plaintiffs seek attorney fees, punitive damages and "such other relief the court deems just."

The lawsuit – which was filed Jan. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio – claims that civil rights violations have been and continue to be committed based on documents that contain restrictive language in certain subdivisions in many Ohio counties.

In many cases, that restrictive language dates back to the 1940s.

Muskingum County Recorder Cindy Rodgers, who is named in the suit, told the Zanesville Times-Recorder: “As elected officials, we must follow the law, and Ohio law requires us to accept for recording all deeds and plats as they are presented. We do not have the legal authority to go back and change or erase history. But if the judge were to feel differently, we would act accordingly."

I think Ms. Rodgers sums it up very well.

Perhaps the lawsuit portends of a defense similar to that of Pope Formosus. (Thanks, Jim.)

Pope Formosus died in 896 AD. His corpse was disinterred, placed in papal vestments, and seated on a throne to face charges from John VIII.

The verdict was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate.

The Damnatio memoriae (condemnation of memory) was applied to Pope Formosus.

All of his measures and acts were annulled and the orders conferred by him were declared invalid.

The papal vestments were torn from his body, the three fingers from his right hand that he had used in consecrations were cut off and his corpse was thrown into the Tiber River.

Perhaps the exhumation of all previous Ohio county recorders would be appropriate in the current litigation?

Granted, they would not offer an awful lot upon cross-examination.

But asking them to testify would seem about as logical as asking today's county recorders to rewrite state and national history.

This case most likely hinges on whether the parties end up with a liberal or a conservative district court judge. That's a judicious shame. Every bit as much as the afore-referenced public records which prompted the present litigation.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.