Be a First Responder to the disaster LSU created!

Be a First Responder! Read what MRGO attorney Pierce O’Donnell had to say about the decision LSU made to terminate Ivor van Heerden.

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. ..

LSU is the beneficiary of substantial research grants from the Army Corps. The Chancellor and his minions have made no bones about the fact that van Heerden was rocking the boat by biting the hand that fed the university’s coffers.

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.

This story is not finished.

If you’re wired for change, follow the link and join Steve in signing on – and, if you’re in New Orleans, join Levees.org for the rally tomorrow, .

MR-Go gets ready to go to trial – Part 1: the Government’s seven motions in limine

Motion in limine (Latin: “at the threshold“) as in a motion filed by the opposing party when a policyholder is “at the threshold” of victory – or so it seems in Katrina insurance litigation. Simply, and accurately stated, however, a motion in limine is a pre-trial motion filed to exclude certain evidence at trial.order-and-reasons-summary-judgment-denied_page_12-3

Seven such motions have been filed by government attorneys representing the Corps of Engineers in the lawsuit that began as Robinson v Corps of Engineers and evolved into the Consolidated Katrina Litigation where it’s known as the MRGO case.

“What in limine motions are not designed to do is to replace the dispositive motions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.  It has become increasingly common, however, for litigants to utilize in limine motions for this purpose.”
( Amtower v. Photo Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582)…

Plaintiffs’ attorney Piece O’Donnell expands on this point in the “blanket opposition” filed as Continue reading “MR-Go gets ready to go to trial – Part 1: the Government’s seven motions in limine”