Posted on 09/20/2005 11:38:42 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
Louisiana's top hurricane experts have rejected the official explanations for the floodwall collapses that inundated much of New Orleans, concluding that Hurricane Katrina's storm surges were much smaller than authorities have suggested and that the city's flood- protection system should have kept most of the city dry.
With the help of computer models and visual evidence, scientists at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers.
* * * * Ivor van Heerden, the Hurricane Center's deputy director, said the real scandal of Katrina is the "catastrophic structural failure" of barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.
"We are absolutely convinced that those floodwalls were never overtopped," said van Heerden. * * * * Tuesday, researchers showed numerous indications that Katrina's surge was not as tall as the lakefront's protections. They showed a "debris line" that indicates the top height of Katrina's waves was at least four feet below the crest of Lake Pontchartrain's levees. They also pointed out how the breached floodwalls near the lake showed no signs of overtopping -- no splattering of mud, no drip lines and no erosion at their bases. They contended that the pattern of destruction behind the breaches was consistent with a localized "pressure burst," rather than widespread overtopping.
Their model indicates that most of the surge around the lake and its nearby canals was less than 11 feet above sea level, and that none of it should have been greater than 13 feet. The Army Corps's flood-protection system for New Orleans was designed to handle surges of more than 14 feet above sea level.
"This should not have been a big deal for these floodwalls," said oceanographer G. Paul Kemp. There's no way this should have exceeded the capacity."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I certainly hope you're not implying that you're "appearance" here has furthered the cause of attorneys of any ilk, or are you presenting yourself as an example of the "grandeur" of the legal profession?
And for the third time, I stopped court reporting because I simply could not abide one more lying attorney.
Smart enough to know that nobody is going to look after you if you don't look after yourself.
"Investigations" are whitewashes. Look at 9/11. They completely swept the Able Danger information under the rug. And will continue to do so as long as they can.
If not for FOIA, lawsuits, and subpoenas, they wouldn't give up a damned thing.
The number one job of government is covering their ass. Doesn't matter if it's federal, state, or local, that's their primary goal and their number one product.
BTW, if you don't know what that reference is to, I'd highly doubt you're practicing the kind of law you're claiming.
And the retainer is for............what?
"There's no free lunch."
"My job is to make the system work by keeping it honest."
You do realize the extreme irony of a trial lawyer saying this don't you?
Anyone that's had any involvement in the court system knows it has extremely little to do with "honesty" and a whole lot more to do with a "free lunch" for one party or the other.
Howlin is a very nice lady who is totally out of her league in this discussion.
It's not about Howlin, and it's not about me.
Personal attacks aside, the issue that I raised was negligence and incompetence and, perhaps, even corruption, in government, presumably the Army Corps of Engineers.
None of which, as conservatives, we should find surprising.
Would I like to get compensation for people who lost their lives and property due to negligence, incompetence, and corruption?
You bet your sweet bippy I would!
If you have a problem with that, tough.
So then you ARE familiar with the DNC?
Well, of course you are.
Your an attorney!
Nobody takes a retainer on a contingency fee case, except maybe to cover costs. And if the client can't cover costs, and the case has merit, the lawyer usually will advance the costs.
So, no retainer, unless the client can afford to pay by the hour, and then, no percentage, it's straight hourly.
I may not be an attorney, but I've been involved with attorneys long enough to know a bad attorney when I see one.
And no self-respecting attorney would post some of the drivel you've posted on this thread.
If you believe that, honestly believe that, then you cannot believe in the rule of law in America.
Nor in the sanctity of the jury system.
Nor can you have much faith in democracy.
Well, which is it, they do or they don't get paid before the client wins? Up the thread you said that plaintiff attorneys don't get paid unless the client wins.
You're all over the place.
Not terribly familiar with the DNC.
I have been a card-carrying Republican for many years. As are many, many lawyers. Fine ones, much better than me, some of them, and a few maybe not so good.
This would be handled in the US Court of Claims. No juries, Louisiana or otherwise.
It's always amazing to witness credentialed individuals attacked within these threads, instead of learning a thing or two. You're a special Lady, CB...hang in there.
No, you're confused because you don't listen. As I said.
If you take a case on a contingency basis, then you don't get paid unless the client wins. That's how a case against the Army Corps of Engineers for poorly constructed levees would probably go, because the clients have been wiped out and are destitute.
You asked about retainers. Retainers are paid in fee cases, not contingency cases.
Posted by the very same person who said:
My brother, who is volunteering in New Orleans, called me earlier today to tell me that "rumor has it" that some big lawsuits were going to be filed against the Army Corps of Engineers, and I should get in on it.
I didn't think too much of it until I read this article, but if the floodwalls really were improperly constructed, there's money in it for sure.
With so much death and destruction, you know everybody is searching for a deep pocket, and it doesn't get any deeper than Uncle Sugar.
---
You "honestly" believe that "the sanctity of the jury system" will deliver your "justice" with a big stack of money for people who were too dumb to realize they lived BELOW SEA LEVEL.
I'm posting YOUR OWN WORDS.
As an attorney you should know that getting your facts strait through contact and discussion is an important part of deliberation.
Nice? Absolutely!
Lady? didn't know and don't care.
Out of her league in ANY discussion? Absolutely NOT!
You, my friend, have proved yourself in that statement to be an outspoken fool.
Sorry for my crass reply, however as an attorney, you should understand my reply, for an attorney can't afford to be an outspoken fool.
I thought the federal employee had to be grossly negligent...
In any case, these flood controls worked as designed. They protected up to a certain point, then failed. The failure mode is really irrelevant. CAT 3, you're dry as can be. CAT 4, better head out the door...
How does her having "credentials" mitigate the fact that she's looking for somebody, anybody to sue to make some money?
It's opportunist and very NON-conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.