Kia Franklin

Judge finds fault, but hands tied

So, I missed this yesterday:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge threw out a crucial class-action lawsuit Wednesday against the Army Corps of Engineers over flooding from a levee breach on the 17th Street Canal after Hurricane Katrina, saying that the agency had failed to protect the city but that his hands were tied by the law.

The judge, Stanwood Duval of Federal District Court, ruled that the corps should be held immune over the failure of the wall on the 17th Street Canal that caused much of the flooding of New Orleans in August 2005. The ruling relies on the Flood Control Act of 1928, which made the federal government immune when flood control projects like levees break.

Keep reading here.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 1:07 PM, Feb 01, 2008 in Hurricane Katrina
Permalink | Email to Friend


The filing of a claim against a party with legal immunity is frivolous, with scienter, thus malice. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff lawyers should each get assessed double all legal costs from personal assets, then should be sent to prison for criminal contempt.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | February 1, 2008 6:27 PM

The concept of sovereign immunity has its value and has been too thoroughly eroded, leading to looting of taxpayers' funds in places such as New York City. Moreover, to remove it entirely is to cause governmental paralysis or worse.

One area where sovereign immunity should be removed is from trail court judges (just kidding)

Posted by: Paul W Dennis | February 2, 2008 6:54 AM

There was proven negligence in the design of the New Orleans levee system. The Corps of Engineers ADMITS to the negligence in their own 6000 page report. Where is the justice?

Posted by: doctorj | February 2, 2008 7:19 PM

The appellate judges of this nation are in out of control insurrection against the Constitution, especially Article I Section 1. They caused the Civil War. They enacted racial discrimination, and precluded female suffrage for forty years, in brazen defiance of the plain language of the Constitution's Civil War Amendments.

Then, we have the nerve to accuse others of miscellaneous holocausts. These judges assassinated tens of millions of viable children, in open defiance of the Fifth Amendment. As usual, minority babies have a high multiple of disparity, and carry the burden of eradication, at several times the pace of other children.

In Reconstruction II, the Executive Branch arrests them. They have a brief trial. The evidence consists solely of excerpts from their decisions, and not any collateral, lawyer gotcha, trivial corruption. Then, they hang, summarily, behind the courthouse. These criminal cult hierarchy enforcers pay for their crimes against humanity.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | February 2, 2008 9:43 PM

Where is the justice is right. Unfortunately I do not know. It is frustrating when judges claim that their hands are tied by the law, calling it neutrality to ignore glaring evidence of injustice/wrongdoing/fault. In many ways as history has shown, judicial decision making is highly politicized. I suppose this is one of the great challenges for proponents of civil justice through the courts. how can we ensure that our courts more effectively create just outcomes for people? how can we challenge the system to continue to improve upon itself rather than encourage blind allegiance to methods of decisionmaking that completely contradict reality and our notions of fairness/equity?

Posted by: Kia Franklin | February 3, 2008 11:12 PM

Kia: Come on. You finished fifth grade. You know the answer to your questions. You feel frustrated by the self-dealt immunity of the government hierarchy, a wholly owned subsidiary of the criminal cult enterprise.

Change the law by legislation.

I strongly support ending all self-dealt criminal cult immunities. Immunity is growth. Liability is eradication. The lawyer sets all industrial policy without competence or accountability.

The land pirate has plundered manufacturing, and it is nearly gone. Open the government to plunder too. The land pirate business is constructively immune. Its growth has been explosive. Make the lawyer liable to all parties, including the adverse third party. Lawyer duties to the adverse third party are in statute, in the Rules of Conduct. Evidence, Civil and Criminal Procedures. Lawyer immunities are unlawful.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | February 4, 2008 8:32 AM

SC: I'm confident that I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the connection you so passionately try to make between this issue and what you call "self-dealt immunities". In any event, in every court case, there are lawyers ("land pirates") on each side of the aisle. If you hate the entire legal profession then you oppose both those who seek to advance justice as well as those who seek to curtail it, if this line can in truth really be drawn. This kind of sentiment is just an unproductive personal bias, and I strain to see its relevance in the context of any fruitful dialogue about our the efficacy of our legal system.

I DID finish fifth grade, that's correct. In the course of my education I've reflected and concluded that changing the way the law recognizes and protects our rights via legislation, is only one limited approach to fixing societal inequities. Yhere are many other fronts on which action should take place. I don't argue that the courtroom is the sole way to create change, and I certainly don't argue that it's always the best--and this case is an unfortunate example of why I don't argue these things. But sometimes, and often, it's the best available means for individuals who don't care about lobbying Congress but simply want justice for themselves and for their community.

Posted by: Kia | February 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Kia: You objected to the legal immunity of the Corps. Not me. All immunities are unjust and violate the Establishment Clause. They can only be justified if the King is correct, and he does speak with the voice of God. If you believe in torts, no one should be exempt from their benefits. If you believe only in plundering productive parties for lawyer enrichment, then litigation privileges have justification.

When courts ram law to an unwilling public, only conflict results. The Left has no fact to support it, thus your anti-democratic methodology. Facts persuade best. I oppose tort reform. Ted has banned me from his blog, as a result. I support ending all immunities. I believe torts work. You do not.

You have to justify the voice of God privilege with facts. Now, its sole validity stems from Army Airborne enforcement of the tyranny of the little Caesars on the bench.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | February 4, 2008 4:28 PM