Levees.org has learned new information regarding U.S. District Judge James Brady’s decision not to require Louisiana State University (LSU) to rehire Dr. Ivor van Heerden immediately.
“This is encouraging news,” said van Heerden in a phone interview with Sandy Rosenthal. “Judge Brady has ordered an injunction trial on May 19 which means early in the litigation process, LSU will be forced to articulate exactly why they fired me.”
By allowing the injunction trial, says van Heerden, Judge Brady is indicating that he feels there are grounds for keeping him employed. Furthermore, using stern words, the Judge let LSU know that he will order a restraining order requiring LSU to rehire van Heerden if he is harassed.
When asked about LSU’s portrayal of van Heerden as ‘temporary labor,’ van Heerden said that was ‘non-sense.’
“I had a permanent hard-money academic position,” said van Heerden. “It was funded by the state for the last 15 years.”
SLABBED reported on “LSU’s portrayal of van Heerden as ‘temporary labor'” in yesterday’s post on Judge Brady’s decision. After picking up Levee.org’s “EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Ivor van Heerden on recent federal judge’s decision” on the Editilla’s New Orleans News Ladder, SLABBED went to the source documents for more.
LSU’s attorneys with the reindeer-sounding name of Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer removed van Heerden’s case from State court on the 5th of March – and, in doing so, LSU made it much easier for SLABBED and others to follow as the case make its way through the Federal court.
On March 15, 2010, ten days following defendant LSU’s removal of the case from Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court, the KSW&B attorneys representing LSU filed an Ex Parte Motion Requesting Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings:
LSU, Voyiadjis and Constant seek an extension through and including April 7, 2010 within which to file responsive pleadings; and Keel and Twilley seek an extension through and including April 12,2010 within with to file responsive pleadings.
Two days later, March 17, 2009, the Magistrate Judge Christine Noland granted the Motion and extended the deadline for all responsive pleadings to April 12 – approximately a month before LSU’s May 21st termination of van Heerden’s contract.
As it turned out, the Defendants jointly filed a single responsive pleading five days before the extended deadline – the Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses filed on the 7th of April that concluded with:
Defendants deny that Van Heerden’ s criticism of the Corps or speech on any other matter was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision not to renew his employment. Defendants show that it would have taken the same action (i.e., non-renewal of his employment), in the absence of any of such speech by Van Heerden.
WHEREFORE, LSU, Keel, Twilley, Voyiadjis, and Constarlt pray that this Answer To Petition And Affirmative Defenses be deemed good and sufficient and that after all legal delays and proceedings are had, there be judgment in favor of Defendants dismissing Van Heerden’s claims in their entirety, with prejudice, at his costs, and for all other general and equitable relief that may be available in the premises.
The key to understanding van Heerden’s subsequent action is “after all legal delays” – words suggestive of the Katrina policyholder litigation strategy — insurer defendants that word-smithed jurisdiction to gain advantage over plaintiffs who could ill afford the higher cost and inherent delays associated with a case in Federal court.
While the words “all legal delays” are suggestive similar word-smithing by the LSU defendants, on the docket of van Heerden v Board of Supervisors of LSU et al, such delays are fact as evidenced in the Magistrate’s second Order setting the date and time of the Scheduling Conference on the case – July 8, 2010 at 9:30 A.M., well over a month after the termination of van Heerden’s employment with LSU.
Consequently, On April 9, 2010, van Heerden filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Alternately, Injunctive and/or Equitable Relief. Included in the Exhibits to the linked document is van Heerden’s Affidavit of Irreparable Harm claiming:
Following my repeated public criticisms of the Corps, the Corps contacted LSU and insisted that I be silenced. Indeed, in October, 2005, Dr. Roy Dokka of the LSU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering sent an angry email message to LSU administrators confirming that Corps officials had complained to him. In the Dokka email, he stated he was “greatly concerned” about “the deluge of irresponsible reports to the media being spewed by a small number of mainly non-tenure track faculty regarding what mayor may not have caused flooding in New Orleans” and stated that I needed to be reined in.
Thereafter, LSU Vice Chancellor Harold Silverman and Robert Twilley contacted the Louisiana Governor’s office to prevent the Team Louisiana study from going forward under my leadership.
Additionally, Silverman and LSU Vice Chancellor Michael Ruffner called me to a meeting at LSU and sternly admonished me for my public criticisms of the Corps. They directly told me my criticisms ofthe Corps jeopardized LSU’s prospects for federal funding and accused me of lacking the expertise needed to comment on the Corps’ engineering of the levees. They also warned me that LSU did not want to be associated with “placing blame” on the Corps.
I was threatened and I memorialized this conversation with Silverman and Ruffner in an email on November 15,2005…
In May, 2006, my book entitled The Storm was released for publication. In my book, I wrote about the failed response by FEMA, other state agencies, and federal agencies. I also wrote that the Corps of Engineers made serious engineering mistakes which caused multiple breaches in the New Orleans levee system resulting in some 90% of the post-Katrina flooding in New Orleans.
After several newspapers began writing about LSU’ s attempts to silence my speech, Ruffner wrote a letter to the New York Times in which he accused me of having “no professional credentials or training” to even discuss the engineering of the levees.
Following Ruffner’s letter, many people, members of the media, and LSU faculty were outraged. Dr. Levitan met with Ruffner regarding his letter and during that meeting, Ruffner again threatened me and accused me of causing problems with the LSU Hurricane Center and further, that if I were not longer part of the Center, things would be better for the Hurricane Center on campus.
On October 15,2006, Voyiadjis told me that there was a “new” personnel policy which would now govern my employment with LSU, that I would no longer be allowed to teach, I was only on a one year appointment, and that I would be judged only on my research. I considered these actions a direct threat to me on account of my continued speech regarding the Corps’ responsibility for the post-Katrina flooding.
In late 2006, LSU Chancellor O’Keefe retaliated against me by refusing to support my nomination for the prestigious National Wetlands Award. Indeed, in emails circulated by O’Keefe, Keel, and Twilley, they agreed my nomination should not be supported as it might ”justify” my “potentially misguided view of service/science” and that I had generated “negative reactions” which they should not give a “stamp of approval” to.
In March, 2007, Twilley directly excluded me from the state’s Science and Engineering Review Team (“SERT”). Also, on May 23,2007, Twilley penned an email where he referred to taking a cyanide pill if he had been confused with me. Keel replied that “we need to be sure they know the difference between Ivor and the rest of LSU” and then inquired of Twilley whether he wanted the cyanide pill for me.
In April, 2007, I was asked to serve as a expert witness in litigation against the Corps relating to MR-GO. I had previously publicly spoken about the Corps’ defective design and Bmaintenance of MR-GO which had produced a funnel effect exposing New Orleans to the brunt of a storm surge from Lake Borgne.
In response, O’Keefe told the plaintiffs’ lawyer that I would be fired if I testified against the Corps and that “they” didn’t want “their people front and center in such politically charged conflicts, especially in a capacity that opposes the current Republican regime”. Thereafter, LSU prohibited me from testifying as an expert witness which directly affected my reputation and standing in the community.
In the summer, 2007, the approach of the hurricane season, LSU placed Twilley in charge of storm surge modeling for CERA to the exclusion of myself. When asked, Twilley advised Dr. Levitan that if I were associated with CERA, he would have been fired by LSU. On August 2, 2007, I requested of LSU access to computer resources for the Hurricane Center, which were effectively denied.
I was again excluded from CERA in 2008 for no legitimate reason.
Also in 2008, Twilley stated that I would be fired if I spoke to the media regarding surge modeling. Twilley further stated that he wanted nothing to do with me and stated that I was one of the “crazies” .
In September, 2008, Twilley ordered me to remove my independent data from the Hurricane Health Center webpage.
On April, 9, 2009, Interim Dean David Constant presented me with a letter stating that my appointment at LSU would not renewed. Constant told me that my non-reappointment had nothing to do with my performance. Constant further stated that my discussions with the media were considered by LSU as speech by me as a private citizen.
Three days later, April 12, the LSU defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Van Heerden’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Alternatively, Injunctive and/or Equitable Relief – the source document for the widely quoted representation of van Heerden as “temporary labor”. However, not only does the brief filed by the LSU defendants misspell van Heerden’s name, the the offensive statements in the document are not limited to those referencing van Heerden as “temporary labor”, for example:
Any damage to his reputation caused by the knowledge of third parties regarding the non-renewal of his contract, was created by Van [sic] Heerden’ s and his counsel’s own actions in publicizing the non-renewal to the news media.
… the outspoken coastal scientist who led the state’s investigation of the levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina said he found out he was fired from his position as deputy director of the LSU Hurricane Center through the media — not through the University.
“[The University] didn’t have the manners to tell me face to face,” van Heerden told The Daily Reveille on Tuesday.
On the eve of the historic Robinson v. United States trial set to begin next Monday, one of the Army Corps’ most vocal and knowledgeable critics has been fired. Dr. Ivor van Heerden, a research professor at Louisiana State University, was recently informed that his contract would not be renewed. The professor has been sharply critical of the Corps’ mismanagement of the flood protection system that was supposed to protect Greater New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina…
Dr. van Heerden has also served as a valued scientific consultant to our trial team in the Robinson case. LSU prohibited him from being a testifying expert at our trial. It is hard enough to defeat the most powerful adversary—the United States of America that prints the money and makes the laws—but heavy-handed tactics to suppress the truth make the challenge even more daunting.
Even more offensive were the LSU defendants’ arguments — particularly the claim stating, ” it is not in the public interest to require LSU to continue to employ Van Heerden after the expiration of his contract on May 21, 2010″. Another post from the SLABBED archives refutes that claim by quoting a related article by Times Picayune reporter Bob Marshall:
Ugly doesn’t change, even when you see it coming. Neither does stupid.
I’m talking about the decision by LSU to fire Ivor van Heerden, the head of the LSU Hurricane Center who earned world-wide renown for his work before and after Hurricane Katrina. This move had been rumored and threatened almost since van Heerden began his post-storm work, but it was no less repulsive for its inevitability.
As someone who covered that story, I always thought the state should be rewarding van Heerden, not chasing him away, because metro area residents — indeed, citizens of any U.S. community currently relying on federal levees to keep them safe — owe Van Heerden a huge debt.
Thus, the LSU defendants’ contention “Injunctive Relief Will Harm LSU” reveals the emperor of higher education in Louisiana wears no clothes. However, it is the “naked truth” and, not a naked emperor, that should inform Judge Brady’s decision.
The mighty lion roars and all are to be afraid. However, given the brain-power of the lion it should be caged and trained to do its job within Department of the Army Engineering Regulations & Manuals. lso the lion nrrds to be taught to read so it can understand the significance of 33 CFR 208.10. Also when it tells the local sponsor to do something it should follow up on that requirement. It appears that this is not the case since as early as 1970 and comes forward to this date. The lion just published EA454 and they still cite removing the pump operators instead of the law which says they must be on duty at that time. Asafe pump station if nt a safe house should have been in place when existing pump stations were placed into a Federal/local project as cited in 33 CFR 208.10. Further operation and maintenance requires monitoring surves of the conveyance channels for erosion and possible affect on the SCL. None of the outfall canals appear to ever been monitored, but all appear to have had their cross-section enlarged by some form of maintenance. The 17th St Canal was the only navigable canal and therefore required a permit from the COE while the others did not.
The letter to the locl sponsors engineers cited the need as they anticipated erosion due to the off-set alignment of the channel to the Orleans side. Seventeen years to Katrina and five more since then.
Placing old pump stations into the LP&VHPP without requiring them to comply with Department of the Army Engineering Manuals and Regulations again point to the lion not being able to read or follow directions without a lot of additional training from higher authority. They also may have the same problem as no one at a higher level bothered to review these oversights, ommisions, blatent mistakes that in most cases would be cited as malfeasence. Butthe lion roared and all opposition or due-diligance of the law by lawyers and judges were as the king without clothes in the parade where all turned a blind eye to the naked truth.
Wow! What a fine piece of blogging! I mean… dayum.
It is one thing to get the Court Documentation, but quite another to Slab them into a coherent scenario as you have done here.
Thank Goddess you are doing this, because Van Heerden’s Legal Team/PR seem to have their tongues frozen in the headlights now nearly 3 days without Public Contradiction after LSU has made this Blatant Misstatement of Fact regarding the esteemed professors employment there.
[When asked about LSU
The more I read about van heerden the more I think he is a media whore. And I’m someone who lost everything bc of the 17 st canal failure. The levees weren’t up to snuff; however but for an immense storm like Katrina– A force majure–which pushed a lot of water into the lake–the flood walls would not have failed. The main issue in front of Brady is the validity of an employment contract.
Also you read too much into the all legal delays phrase. Standard boilerplate ending in a prayer for relief. I bet van hardon’s petition has the same language in it’s prayer.
I had to jump-in, Sydney and, first, ask if in your “lawyer-opinion” it was necessary to remove the case to federal court?
I do know that “prayers” are boilerplate but as to “after all legal delays” – boilerplate or not, we’ve had Katrina cases moved to federal court and plaintiffs in some cases filing motions to remand that cited the increased cost and delays associated with federal court cases in their motions. While that argument fails in terms of the law determining jurisdiction, it is a valid description of the plaintiffs’ reality.
Next, just comment replying to yours – if van Heerden is a “media whore” then institutions of higher education are a “research whorehouse” with the “institution” as “madam”. People like van Heerden are “prizes” in that culture as they bring prestige and money – the two things the “madam” values most.
Last, back to you with another question – is van Heerden’s “burden” to show LSU had no “right” – OR – is his burden to show LSU’s 2006 reclassification of his position to “contractual” and other post-Katrina acts were retaliatory and restrictive of his rights?
Appreciate your stopping by, Sydney, hope you get back our way shortly!
Nowdy
Thanks, Nowdy!
Not sure what the grounds for removal were–without looking at the pleadings, only thing i can think of is that van Heerden’s original Petition invoked a federal question, i.e. federal employment statute or some civil rights statute, etc. hence it was removable.
As for Katrina cases, there were some law firms **cough cough Ungarino cough cough** who improperly removed suits which should not been removed. however, many were removed b/c of diversity and the j/d threshold were met. If there is diversity and the plaintiff attorney alleges plaintiff’s entitlement to, say, policy limits because of the VPL, the case can be removed–the pl atty many times delayed the case by filing pointless motions to remand with a too-late stipulation that damages were less than $75k…trying to have one’s cake and eat it too. Besides, in the Eastern District, the judges had indiviual Katrina cases on the fast track–a helluva lot faster than state courts. As for costs–bogus! You can file everything electronically in the fed courts and unless it is a pleading initiating suit (i.e. complaint or removal), there is no filing fee.
as for your last question, i would posit that for purposes of the injunction, van heerden would need to establish that he would be prejudiced should LSU be allowed to exercise its plenary power to renew or not renew contracts of employment–not to have LSU explain why they “fired” him. However, even if he loses the injunction, he will still have his day in court if his original petition proceeds where he bear the burden to prove LSU’s actions were retailitory etc. if so, then it becomes a matter of damages.
This is why i question his motives. he filed his suit…he will have his day in court. yet, he still want to keep his band out there, by misrepresenting the procedural posture of his suit. The TRO was denied; it is natural that an injunction hearing be set on an expedited basis.
I was wondering a how long it would take for a “Sydney” to chime in, the whore character assassin ! His goal is to make personal attacks in hopes of marginalizing the victim, Mr. van Heerdon, while trying to disguise his motive with some sophomoric legalese mumbo-jumbo. Sydney will continue to be critical of the “person” not the issue; negative spin to make it appear something’s mentally
wrong with Mr. van Heerdon and not those over paid lock-step bureaucratic jack-asses at LSU. Casting a false light upon Mr. van Heerdon among his peers and the community would be the be the successful defense Sydney reasons.
Hey Sydney, vous etes la putain alors allez vous foutre !
One man’s media whore is another’s hero. Let’s keep it civil and we’ll all figure out what is going on.
sop
How about my adding, please? “when we all think alike, no one is thinking” and it’s going to take a lot of thinking to figure out what’s going on. When I started the post, I had only planned to cover van Heerden’s Motion and the Opposition Response but you see the result.
Sydney, the “Removal” is linked in the second paragraph after the block quote introduction and is just a couple of pages. whitmergate, put your lawyer eyes on it, too.
Also, I ran out of steam before I would work in one issue that stood out to me – it has to do with the calculation of funding LSU received from the Corps (attested to in an Affidavit included as exhibit in the Opposition Response).
I’ll post what I wrote (and cut but saved) and see if anyone can figure out more than I could but can’t do until I can get to the computer with my notes – be a while, but not too long (I hope).
Nowdy
I’m just a little curious….. how we can find coaches to take LSU to national chamionships in baseball and football but we can’t seen to appreciate and keep an expert on hurricanes in Louisiana?Doesn’t that sound a little strange?I don’t care if his personality is offensive but only if he helps keep us dry!Oh, I guess with all our wonderful strong rebuilt corps levees there’s just no need for a man of his knowledge. It is a shame the brains who helped arrange van heerden’s evacuation don’t live at the 17th street canal instead of probably in Baton Rouge on Highland Road.
I commend Sydney for speaking up, but I smelled insurance lawyer as soon as he/she used the term “force majure.” I don’t know Van Heerden and I admittedly do not know enough about the merits of the contractual dispute to comment in any educated fashion. It seems levees.org might be a little heavy on the rhetoric and they bombard me with so many e-mails, I stopped reading them.
But, I do know about Van Heerden’s presentation of the Huricane Pam animation. So Sydney, before you invoke the predictable “force majure” insurance-type defense (way out of context here), go do some quick research on Hurricane Pam.
Re: Chuck Wilson, Exhibit E in the Opposition brief filed by the LSU defendants (per my earlier comment about USACE funding received by LSU)
Mr. Wilson is identified as the “Vice Provost of Academic Affairs, Executive Director of the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program and Professor of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences”:
“… in said capacity he has personal knowledge and/or has reviewed the books and records of LSU and can attest to the following facts:
1. During the period of2005 to the present, [April 2010] LSU has received project funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which totals less than $100,000 for this entire time period.
2. This amount is less than 2/100ths of 1 % of the total funding from other outside sources which LSU has received during this time period. Funding from outside sources has ranged between approximately $130 million and $150 million per year during the period of 2005 thru the present.
My related notes: the exact dates covered by the “time period” not specified; no definition of “received” (vs awarded, period of obligation, etc.; why examination of records documenting funds received produced an “approximate” and not exact total; and no indication of data examined such as chart listing source document, amount of funding, funding period.
The “approximate” totals seem low for a university the size of LSU. For example, a fairly simple web search turned up four grants from FEMA to LSU awarded in early 2006 and “totally more than $21million” and a single grant to “Stephen Harrison of LSU AgCenter” for $915,146, also awarded in 2006; as well as, a list of grants for a faculty member indicating how much one individual could generate in “funding from outside sources.
Also direct awards not only influence – disclosure should include that amount of USACE contracts awarded to LSU affiliated entities, including contracts with companies owned by the University’s major donors and those with connection to LSU who had USACE contracts related to flood prevention such as construction, maintenance or repair of the levees.
Bottom line, very sparse accounting for funds – but Sop could better speak to different accounting methods of various education agencies and might now if Louisiana has uniform higher education accounting system requirements.
all for now,
Nowdy
Not to sound sarcastically French, but is any of this information available under the Public Records Law of Louisiana ?
I find it extremely offensive to define Mr. van Heerdon’s contractual employment as “temporary labor”, as though he is akin to a field hand or skid row bum looking for hourly or daily employment. And this is my point, the use of pejorative descriptive terms to characterize the victim, Mr. van Heerdon, without a slap down by the court, will only encourage the defense to use any means to discredit the victim. In my opinion LSU has no defense; so destroy Mr. van Heerdon no matter what! What a moral disgrace to have lawyers more focused in denigrating the victim than admitting their client is wrong.
To curiousgeorge: It may surprise you and others that Katrina did not flood the city! It was in fact a lack of following law, Engineering Manual & Regulations from that law that caused the flooding. 33 CFR 208.10 a little 5 page document written by the Secretary of the Army for operation and maintenance for local flood projects covers all that was wrong.
Further in 1988, Mr Chatry, Engineering Division Chief for the NOD wrote a 2 page letter concerning the anticipted problems from the offset dredging and required annual monitoring surveys of the canal. Guess what, they were never done and no monitoring of the erosin took place. Violate the SCL, the bank fails, then the levee fails and then the floodwall fails. This could have happened after any rain event where the erosion had gotten great enough to cause this event. The same applies to the other outfall canals, but sunce they were not navigational they did not need a COP permit to dredge or do maintenance channel cleaning/enlarging. I am not a lawyer, but I was a Registered Civil Engineer for almost 40 yrs until I retired in 2001 from that organization.
Curiousgeorge, I will also grant you that the surge from the lake was far greater than anticipated, and that additional load did its thing fast. However, one might try to find what levels in the canals are reached during normal pumping after or during a large rain event?
One other thing no one looks at, is that the Barrier Plan was to be constructed with closures at the Rigolets, the Chef & the IHNC. These were abandoned due to environmentl issues of no consequence and guess what folks the Causeway and the Twin Spans were constructed in the late 1950 -60’s period. You ever wonder why the deck elevations were so low? Could it be they were designed with a surge elevation much less based upon these Barriers being in place, but when abandoned left them to the mercy of unchecked surge? Just simple engineering that may not have been followed up by any entity. We look at the log in the eye but not the speck that creates so much more irritation!! It’s the little things stupid!!!
Some call it the domino effect! I call it malfeasence!
wayne, i hear ya. the levees/floodwalls weren’t up to snuff. The surge from Katrina was enough to expose the shortcomings very quickly. However, to say Katrina did not cause flooding is a stretch. Besides, Caesar built the floodwalls and then Caesar declared himself immune from suit should any problems arise from his floodwerks…It’s good to be the king….
Nowdy, suit was indeed removed on the basis of federal question. Dr. van Heerdan alleged 1983 violations. if he didn’t want it to be in federal court, he should have gone with a different cause of action. As for the affidavit by the lsu guy, it’s just an affidavit for the purposes of opposing the injunction. Detailed formal discovery (which really isn’t available with something as expedited as an injunction hearing) may provide the specific answers you are looking for.
Maybe i was harsh before but this is my problem with van heerdon:
Syndey is right about Van Heerden’s quote regarding the injunction. As a lawyer, the quote made no sense to me. The black letter law on injunctions is that is you allege solely “monetary damage” as a basis for the injunction then you lose. There are always exceptions, but thats the general rule.
Breaking News Update!
CORPS FAILS
FOOLS ERRAND
HURRICANE PROTECTION PLAN FATALLY FLAWED
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf/2010/04/hurricane_protection_plan_dema.html
I’m still searching for past posts, but we said they were going to fuck us and they did.
This is getting like slapping the Master Blaster…
like goo’goo’goo drool’dweedle’dum
Remember Master Blaster?
All this TIME and all this MONEY and all this BULLSHIT
and NOTHING BUT FAIL!
Goddamn It!
maybe Sydney is not a character assassin whore. maybe he just has a really low opinion of any plaintiff victim as is van Heerdon, like so many others in a defense firm’s high rise office building.
C’est assez, Sop—let’s critique the altogether flippant sentiments of Sydney’s last deleterious paragraph, as he proceeds to marginalize van Heerdon’s character:
1) “…why did the good professor…” In my opinion the sarcasm reeks of just the opposite; that
van Heerdon is a BAD professor, a BAD person.
2) “…wait almost a year from the date…” In my opinion, this suggests van Heerdon has some
SINISTER motive to avail himself of his legal rights which everyone has, including
Sydney.
3) “…he knew his employment contract would be up to institute legal proceedings ?… So Sydney
what’s your problem with people KNOWING about their legal rights ? Is there
something WRONG about van Heerdon because has such a degree of awareness ?
4) “…maybe he tried to get another research gig…” INNUENDO intended to discredit van
Heerdon’s truthful allegation of believing that his contract was to be renewed. SHAMELESS
5)”…but other institutions found him too radioactive…” What institutions ? DEFAMATION !
So no one should want to be associated with van Heerdon, he’s diseased you say ? And the
gratuitous “…maybe not…” is not sufficient to forgive what I believe I read, character
assassination.
J’ai bien puer que l’heure du diner ne soit passee, auvoir…
Sop once emailed me privately and ask why more people didn’t post given the site hits…all one has to do is read the string of comments on this post to answer that question.
Syndey you make some very good points from a different perspective.
Some would here would only have one side of the argument heard!
Que les flammes commencent
whitmergate, you really can’t be “critical of the ‘person’ not the issue” – particularly after you were critical of others for same.
Denigrating a person who files a lawsuit is not equivalent to a debate on the merits of a lawsuit.
So tell me, what did the last paragraph of Sydney’s post add to the legal discussion ?
I could care less that anyone agrees with me; or should they care that I agree with them.
Il y a le feu ?
So is denigrating a person who posts an opinion different that one that I post equivalent to a debate? My point is we can differ as to what we think without resorting to personal attacks…Did Sydney go over the top with his comments about van Heerden? Possibly! But then again van Heerden isn’t a poster is he? He is the subject of the post!
From a legal stand point he did not add a thing but from the standpoint of what van Heerden’s motivation and from a discussion standpoint it raised questions that a lot a suits do that are filed at or close to prescription. If the case had legs why now and not 6,8 or 10 months ago. Time will tell if the case has merit. It is refreshing to have a full vetting of the issues not just cheerleaders for one team.
comme pr
Wow! You cats rock.
Nowdy, how do we find out what funding LSU receives from Entities Connected With The Corps of Engineers via contract or whatever, like for example: Shaw Group?
That is where I see the Funding Pressure coming from more than Explicitly Corps Funding.
The Corps NEVER does anything Explicitly.
There is so much Big Money work on this table that I find it much easier to understand Lobbying Pressure from Largess Recipients.
Just axin… how do we list the Funding to LSU from Corps Contractor Entities.
Given the article I cited just above, and it’s statement of Failure by the Corps to fulfill Congressional Mandate AGAIN, I can’t help but consider the Corps/Shaw/ADM/Energy Industry strategy here in Louisiana over the next 50 years to be coastal reduction and flooding populaces.
People are in the way. Van Heerden has to Go.
Hazard Mitigation is what they want in place of sound coastal science:
http://opp-inc.com/content/index.php?page=111
Sooo, how do we narrow the search to Corps Related LSU Funding?
Hope I have the right paragraph, whitmergate:
Good question, Editilla. Whitmergate asked if the data were available under “open records” and I intended to respond so this is a two-fer response.
Open records is one option – but there are a lot to open. The obvious place to start is direct funding from USACE to LSU – all locations and affiliated entities/individuals. If you start with a search from USACE records, you have to request all funding to LSU as the recipient agency or as a sub-recipient – meaning another entity received funding and LSU was either a member of a consortium headed by another agency/entity or a contractor – and you have to specify a time period when funds were either awarded or received.
However, I agree with your contention the pressure to terminate van Heerden was more likely to come from those his work threatened – and that opens up a far more extensive search. The Corps spends millions in Louisiana via contracts with companies to perform various tasks. You could request records on those contracts but the request needs to be for work in the state vs contractors based in the state.
You’d also need data identifying donors to LSU, names of individuals in position of influence and their business affiliations, and the owners/major stockholders of the business that contract with USACE to perform work in or related to the state.
We’re talking a big mama data base that can be queried sideways, upside down – not fast and potentially very expensive.
My translation of Sydney’s related comment is the Affidavit I questioned was what I call a “quick and dirty” for the purpose of the injunction and discovery might produce what I was felt was needed.
Hope this helps, Editilla.
Lively commentary folks. I even think Ivor would approve.
Here is my own 2 cents because that I think gets to the heart of the matter.
There is a difference between what is right under the law and what is perceived as right and wrong by the public as a whole. I think it is clear that Van heerden spoke his mind and LSU got rid of him for doing same. That doesn’t necessarily mean he is gonna get his job back though.
Regarding his media remarks there is another way of looking at this. If you have a sure fire winner why spend the time? The fact is taking on a major university in court can be a most humbling experience as former Tulane medical school biochemistry research professor Carl Bernofsky can attest first hand. It appears he was Berrigan’d straight outta the courthouse in fact.
The issues at the heart of this are important. I’m blessed with a good bit of paying work but now that tax season is done I need to visit with the levees again in conjunction with USACE and River Birch as there is connection that may shed a bit more light on things.
(I also have some tips from a wino that may help expand the conversation on the Parish Attorney’s office.)
sop
There are all kind of tactical reasons for waiting to file a lawsuit, but insurance lawyers like Sydney read some nefarious motive into this. He/she might be right about the merits of the lawsuit, but none of us knows at this point.
I pinch myself Sock that Sidney stops in with us. None of ’em on this side of the line have enough sack to comment though I do occasionally get blind emails asking for Qui Tam updates.
sop
Point is, Sock, he read – and I’m most appreciative of his help on jurisdiction and how kind he was to point out what appeared to be my reliance on “boilerplate” language when others had to notice.
IMO, you can’t really understand a case if you don’t know what both sides are thinking. I always read documents filed by insurers in the cases I report, although it may not always be evident as I tend to quote more from those filed by plaintiff’s – chiefly because their documents are usually shorter but address all the points and “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line joining the points” (the only benefit I’ve found from suffering through high school geometry).
All readers are valued, those who take the time to comment even more, but, all equally – whether I agree or not.
Hey! Did y’all catch this on the Ladder?
Notes on the 2010 Tulane Engineering Forum ~NOLA-dishu
~Dr. Chrisian’s list of things the Corps does “not-good” was pretty scary. First, he says that all too often you’ll have a representative from the Corps, say that the Corps has never had a failure. He says that if you put enough modifiers and adjectives in there, you can get a strictly factual statement, but, in the end, THE LEVEES FAILED!
It’s sad to say, but the Corps failed, the Corps failed, the Corps failed. He said it needs to be drilled in that the Corps’ levees failed from Katrina’s glancing blow under stresses far below their design capacity. The Corps-built levees resulted in the worst civil engineering disaster in American history. Dr. Christian was adamant that that fact not be overlooked in any way.
http://noladishu.blogspot.com/2010/04/engineers-at-2010-tulane-engineering.html
There was of course one person ahem absent from this forum, though I bet not far from their thoughts.
and my aren’t we a pesky group of slabbers here!
I ain’t Even getting into any’O’dat! 😉
Jeezus, I gotta repost this post onto today’s Ladder. The comments are starting to like Prevolve the Reality… which is always a good thing.
Y’all fucking rock.
Sorry for the delay in response and sop don’t pinch yourself. I try to see both angles and don’t try to root for only one side. Maybe ivor is a victim of retaliation but he still has to prove it.
Sydney & all: Again I will cite the law 33CFR208.10 for operation and maintenance of a local flood project. It was put in place by the Secretary of the Army to have the COE hand over completed portions of a project to the local sponsor to handle. That is the two words that never apply to this project in any way “completed portion”. There was and is no completed separate portion on this project. Levees – not to final grade; floodwalls – not to final grade; pump stations – never met Department of the Army Engineering Manuals or Regulations!
So tell me why the locals became responsible? The 17th Street Canal dredging in the late 1980 – early 1990 time frame never completed and as of this date there is no talk of ever completing that project.
Letter from the COE telling the contractors of the OLD & S&WB that they must survey the outfall canal annually for anticipated erosion that could affect bank stability.
33 CFR208.10 further cites this requirement but more frequently, again never accomplished by either entity. Comments from the COE about possible/probable maintenance clearing of the other outfall channels for increase pump capacity. No permit required so no conformation since the London & Orleans Canals were never navigation channels.
The COE should have known of 33 CFR208.10, but it appears they either didn’t or they just ignored it. So through malfeasence the COE allowed the local entities to increase channel cross-section without monitoring as required and once the SCL has been violated enough for a long enough period almost any extreme change could make the bank fail, which makes the levee fail, which makes the floodwall fail. The first domino was the increase of the channel cross-section, the second no monitoring, the third no maintenance to keep the proper SCL.
All of the above belongs to the COE, they set the paramitors! The locals were to comply when the complete portions were turned over to them for operation & maintenance.
No pump station ever met the COE standards and nothing was done to bring them into compliance until Katrina had passed. A letter from 1970 concerning those in the Orleans West Unit in East Jefferson still has not been complied with.
Katrina was just one event on one day the project was in jeprody from 1970 in East Jefferson and since 1988 in Orleans Parish also in the West Orleans Unit.
Until you get the engineering and law correct you are just wadding in the water!