Well of course the COE is not to blame.

They designed and built the levees. Their levees don't fail. They are not to blame.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Well, if ANYTHING is likely to lure Paul back out of his quasi-retirement...

J.

Lay the blme where it belongs on the eco-freak wackos who have been holding back neded leavee repares over their worries about the invisible spotted leavve gupy

It's not whether the COE did something wrong, it was whether the plaintiffs had a legal claim to make... and they didn't. Of course, they knew what the law was but filed their lawsuit anyway, hoping to find a living breathing judge willing to ignore the written law in order to do 'right'. It is a bit of a surprise to find that one of Clinton's appointees wouldn't go along with the end run. If there was justice in the world, the plaintiffs would have been sanctioned and fined for wasting the court's time.

What is wrong with you people?! We pay tax dollars for government organizations such as this to take the appropriate measures to assure that this stype of situations do not occur! The "eco freaks" are not to blame, they are attempting to protect the environment. It is all checks and balances, without the "eco freaks" the Corps would have nobody to challenge their decisions, or point out the environment flaws. The law protects the government as stevesturn says, but let's see here... what is America founded upon? PROTECTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT! Not government protection from the people. The fact that the judge refused to even HEAR the case is something that astounds me. Welcome to America, *BARF*. There is no democracy left. Argue as you may, reply with harsh words, it's not like I will ever check this again anyways. Think about it though, if your tax dollars go to the Corps... WHY!? To protect us from situations such as this. That's what I thought.

There is no democracy left.

This country never was intended to be a democracy. A democracy is simply another form of tyranny - tyranny by the majority. It astounds me at the number of people who don't understand this basic concept.

And yes, I know that 'everyone' uses the term to describe the form of government in the U.S. but that makes it no less incorrect.

>They designed and built the levees. Their levees don't fail. They are not to blame.

IF that's sarcasm, it's spot on... if you're serious, then you're an idiot. The levees crumbled like wet crackers.

The judge is simply wrong. The law says that you can't sue over POLICY. But you can sue over NEGLIGENCE. The Corps was negligent and can be sued. It's not a policy issue, it was an engineering issue.

I've explained it dozens of times... like always, search the archives.

I explained it the first time just a couple of weeks after the storm.

As Rita approached the levees failed AGAIN and the city was flooding AGAIN live on all the cable news networks. -- While the world watched the levees crumble on live TV, the Corps was on TV denying the levees where "breached." I explained then why the Corps was TERRIFIED of the word breached here.

The Corps was clearly negligent and we have it on video. They have even admitted it.

The law is so clear here it is astounding in many ways that the judge would toss it out, but he had no choice. If the law where followed properly, it would cost the treasury bazillions of dollars.

Forget JFK and Roswell, this cover-up is indisputable and right in front of our eyes.

>It's not whether the COE did something wrong, it was whether the plaintiffs had a legal claim to make... and they didn't. Of course, they knew what the law was but filed their lawsuit anyway, hoping to find a living breathing judge willing to ignore the written law in order to do 'right'.

Steve, since you are so knowledgeable, can you tell me what the law says and why the plaintiffs had no legal claim?

Can you tell me what "written law" they wanted the judge to ignore?

Do me a favor, no doublespeak... quote the "written law" or STFU.

Good to have you back Paul. Are you watching Idol this year? ww

IF that's sarcasm, it's spot on... if you're serious, then you're an idiot. The levees crumbled like wet crackers.

Of course it's sarcasm....my comments on the COE are pretty consistent here, Paul.

Paul: I realize that it's useless to argue with you, as you're so emotionally caught up in your own troubles that you've gone off the deep end, wallowing in your despair and cuddling your conspiracy theories, (there's a cover up that dwarfs Roswell? JFK? In this day and age?), but, hey, when your own lawyer admits not only that the case was a long shot, but also that they've got next to no chance at winning on appeal, I'm pretty comfortable with my position.

Now why would your attorney be so pessimistic on the chances for a reversal? Appeals courts are more than willing to reverse if the trial judge was wrong on a matter of law (which you seem to imply he was). They also will reverse if the judge screwed up determining the facts at issue. If the trial judge so clearly screwed up, your attorney would be salivating over your chances for a reversal. That even a Clinton appointed judge doesn't think you have grounds to sue is just one more nail. And for you to say that the judge ignored the law and threw out the lawsuit to avoid costing the US Treasury some dollars is laughable (but consistent with your behavior).

And while we're on the subject of remaining quiet, when are you going to provide those who donated money to your little cause of helping unfortunate New Orleans residents the accounting of what you did with the money we contributed? Tell me, was more than one resident helped with the money?

Paul writes:

Do me a favor, no doublespeak... quote the "written law" or STFU.

And while we're on the subject of remaining quiet, when are you going to provide those who donated money to your little cause of helping unfortunate New Orleans residents the accounting of what you did with the money we contributed? Tell me, was more than one resident helped with the money?

1) That whole effort was undertaken by the rest of us at Wizbang for Paul's benefit. He did not ask us to hold such a fundraiser.

2) The money was intended for him and his family and was advertised as such.

3) He took the money and gave most of it to others whose situation was more dire. That was his choice.

4) I think he did report on what he did with the money via e-mail and in a post (or comment), but since the money was given to him "no strings attached" he was not required to account for its spending.

>Paul: I realize that it's useless to argue with you, as you're so emotionally caught up in your own troubles that you've gone off the deep end,

In other words I you have no fucking clue what you are babbling about so you call names. Quote the law or STFU.

--------------

SPQR search the archives. It's all in there. (much of it in the comments)

--------------

And back to the money issue, Steve I'd offer you the same advice... Read the archives...

But of course, you're only trying to divert the topic because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about and you've been called out.

Once again, quote the "written law" or shut the fuck up.

Sorry HughS, too many morons too little time. I lose track of who is who.

I'm used to people like Steve who talk about "written law" but have no clue what they are talking about.

ww yes but so far uninspired. They made Simon too gooey.

I slammed him last year for making fun of mentally challenged kids... but certainly there is a happy medium between that and him telling everyone how much he loves them grrr...

There is one singer out there who is hot but I forget her name. Blond from I think the second night ... not Kristy Lee Cook who every one is wild about because of the nude pictures on the net. (you're welcome for the google bait Kevin ;-)

33 U.S.C.A. § 702c

United States Code Annotated

Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters

Chapter 15. Flood Control

§ 702c. Expenditures for construction work; conditions precedent; liability for damage from flood waters; condemnation proceedings; floodage rights

Except when authorized by the Secretary of the Army upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, no money appropriated under authority of sections 702a and 702g of this title shall be expended on the construction of any item of the project until the States or levee districts have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will

(a) maintain all flood-control works after their completion, except controlling and regulating spillway structures, including special relief levees; maintenance includes normally such matters as cutting grass, removal of weeds, local drainage, and minor repairs of main river levees;

(b) agree to accept land turned over to them under the provisions of section 702d of this title;

(c) provide without cost to the United States, all rights-of-way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and the Head of Passes. No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, however, That if in carrying out the purposes of sections 702a, 702b to 702d, 702e to 702g, 702h, 702i, 702j, 702k, 702l, 702m, and 704 of this title it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees, either because such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel, and lands in such stretch of the river are subjected to overflow and damage which are not now overflowed or damaged by reason of the construction of levees on the opposite banks of the river it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers to institute proceedings on behalf of the United States Government to acquire either the absolute ownership of the lands so subjected to overflow and damage or floodage rights over such lands.

Paul:

What's left to say? Your side got slammed in court, by no less than a Clinton appointed judge. The attorney for the plaintiffs admits he has no shot at an appellate reversal and that the whole lawsuit was a long shot. As the victor in this case (me and the rest of the country's taxpayers), I don't have to prove anything, the burden is on your side. As SPQR (#13) put it, you think the judge screwed up, or that there's a law he ignored, or that he was incompetent, please feel free to provide cites to the relevant section, I'm sure your side's attorney would be thrilled to have a legal eagle such as yourself point out for him what he has missed.

And the outcome is just as it should be. The country doesn't owe you a check. You're the ones who didn't buy flood insurance, who chose to live in a city that lies under sea level and you were the ones counting (to the extent that this even entered your stream of consciousness) on a combination of federal, state and city agencies that were well known to be corrupt and/or incompetent to keep you dry.

I'd ordinarily feel bad for someone in your situation. And, at the time, I did feel bad and kicked in some money to the cause*. But, as the expression goes, that was before I got to know you better. You don't win in court and you start screaming conspiracy (hey, it must be conspiracy, because since you've "explained it dozens of times...", how else could the judge rule otherwise?). You cuss out those who disagree with your position that the federal government owes you a big fat. If I had known then what I know now, I would have taken the money that I kicked in to the cause and instead upped my contribution to the Red Cross. Oh well, my bad.

* Kevin: I accept what you say was said at the time, please allow me to plead guilty to not reading everything carefully in my rush to contribute.

Yes Taltos now finish the quote.... and prove my point.

=================
No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, however, That if in carrying out the purposes of sections ... it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees, either because such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel...
=================

If you read it the Government is immune IF THEY FAIL TO BUILD levees for any of the reasons listed.

That has nothing to do with this case. They built a levee alright... They built a levee they knew was faulty.

In other words, as I've explained at length many times. You can't sue the Corps if you flood and they did not put anything in the way of the water. That is a POLICY matter.

--I've even said that on this thread.-- link

This case is about NEGLIGENCE which is a completely different ball of wax. They built a levee which failed.

If you get in a wreck in your 1970 Buick, you can't sue because they should have had airbags; airbags did not exist then... If your 2008 has a faulty airbag system that Buick knew was faulty but they installed anyway, you own them.

I was hoping to get Steve to post it so I could roast him, but thanks just the same.

>please feel free to provide cites to the relevant section, I'm sure your side's attorney would be thrilled to have a legal eagle such as yourself point out for him what he has missed.

I did above. Case closed. The immunity covers the government for NOT building levees where they can not. It has nothing to do with negligence.

Of course I wouldn't want fact to get in the way of your bigoted stupidity.

Are you really so stupid (and stubborn) that you can't read the law and admit it has nothing to do with this case?

Are you really?

Paul, You're right, the law entitles you to recover money for all of your stupidity, oops, I mean the Corps negligence, and it is only the incompetence, conspiring and the bigoted stupidity (bigoted? against whom, stupid, greedy types like you?) of all the parties involved that is keeping that from happening.

You can cite whatever you want, but face it, if you were right, you would have won. If it were that simple, a one L could have walked into court and won, right? But that didn't happen, did it? How about this, you think you've got a winning case, why don't you haul your rear end down to the courthouse and file the papers yourself? Get the NYT and the WaPo to run a profile about the waterlogged do-it-himself attorney whose legal expertise allowed him - and only him - to see what everybody has failed to see and to win the billions of dollars due him and his fellow once-and-likely-again underwater neighbors.

Or, I'll relax my rule against taking money from fools and idiots and put forth this wager: if your side fails to win on appeal (impossible, given the clear wording of the law, right?), you give me back the money I contributed to your sad cause. And if you win, if the decision is reversed and you collect the money that is due you, I'll contribute $1,000 to a (legitimate) charity of your choosing.

BTW for the 1 or 2 people reading who actually are interested in this law here is the explainer:

No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, however, That if in carrying out the purposes of sections 702a, 702b to 702d, 702e to 702g, 702h, 702i, 702j, 702k, 702l, 702m, and 704 of this title it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees, either because such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel, and lands in such stretch of the river are subjected to overflow and damage which are not now overflowed or damaged by reason of the construction of levees on the opposite banks of the river it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers to institute proceedings on behalf of the United States Government to acquire either the absolute ownership of the lands so subjected to overflow and damage or floodage rights over such lands.

Basically the law says this... The Corps is responsible to protect people from floods. In a perfect world there is unlimited free land on which to build and unlimited money to build with. But life ain't perfect so the Corps can not be held responsible for an imperfect world.

If the Corps can't build a levee [for one of the reasons defined in the law above] they are not responsible for whoever gets flooded.

Any fair reading of this act would find that this has nothing to do with the Corps building a system that they knew was faulty.*

Of course the Steve's of the world will never admit this.

=============
* YES they knew it was faulty and they built it anyway. link 1 and don't miss this one... The Corps built a full size model of the floodwall which failed miserably yet they used that same floodwall in New Orleans.. That's why I say it is negligent homicide. That link right there ends the discussion.

You're a card Steve, you admit you don't have the law on your side but then hide behind the fact the court ruled against the plaintiffs.

>You can cite whatever you want, but face it, if you were right, you would have won.

Yes, because there has never been an incorrect ruling in any courtroom ever. The courts are blessed with infallibility. I guess Kelo is good law huh?

You're a child Steve.

a child, sure, but one who's offered to put his money behind his childish and, according to you, wrong, view of the case. And you, the beacon of righteousness, are refusing to step up and back up your claims with anything but more name calling for those who disagree with you. But that's not new, you've been doing that from day one to anyone who dared suggest you ought not collect a dime from the government.

Let me know if you ever get the guts to step up. Until then, I'll leave you to wallow in your bitterness. Go back on vacation.

as for Kelo, her attorney thought she had a chance, a good chance of winning... which is more than your attorney thinks of your case. But, if you were right, then there'd be a line of attorneys to step up and right this wrong.... so tell me Paul, where is the line?

If the Corps can't build a levee [for one of the reasons defined in the law above] they are not responsible for whoever gets flooded.

Any fair reading of this act would find that this has nothing to do with the Corps building a system that they knew was faulty.

No, sentences don't end with commas. The act says the the US isn't liable for flood damage period. It then goes on to say that if the Corps feels that a levee is unfeasible for whatever reason that they have to attempt to buy the land or the floodage rights to it.

Since New Orleans had levees and it was most definately a flood control project(there is some disagreement on whether the immunity clause applies to non flood projects), there is zero liability.

>No, sentences don't end with commas.

WOW That's my whole point....

You're trying to end the sentence at the comma. (actually the colon) and I am reading the whole thing.

Funny you mention the sentence doesn't end with a comma when that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do.

Guess the irony is lost on you.

--------------------
Geeze even Steve now admit he doesn't have the law on his side. He's continues to be a complete and total asshole about it but at least he admits it.

Taltos, in case you -still- don't get it....

You said:

The act says the the US isn't liable for flood damage period. It then goes on to say...

But the law says:

No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, however, ...

You're just plain wrong.

>I'll leave you to wallow in your bitterness.

No bitterness on my end Steve... Check my original post about it. Nobody expected to ever see a penny from this.

But that doesn't make it less of a travesty of justice... a rape victim usually knows she's going to raped before the deed is done but that doesn't make it acceptable, just inevitable.

But it is people like you Steve who made the people of New Orleans sue... The Corps with wanton -and well documented- negligence killed 1200 people and destroys a city and you take to the net loudly and proudly to call these people stupid.

Steve, over half of these people where elderly or handicapped. They couldn't drive themselves to safety and had no one to take them. Thanks to the Corps' negligence they spend their final moments on earth scratching and clawing trying to keep their heads above water. And drowned.

And you call them stupid.

Classy Steve, classy.

I realize this concept might be above your pea sized brain but this isn't about money Steve. It is about holding the Corps accountable and not blaming the victims.

Yes, "however..." if the Corps feels levees aren't a good idea they have to try to buy the land. In other words they can't just say "We really don't want to bulid levees, screw you folks" they have to try to acquire the land from them. Read the entire passage, it's a single sentence. Nothing in the rest of the act modifies the immunity clause. You seem to get to the however and stop reading or something.

I never said the sentence ended with the immunity clause, I said the clause grants immunity, period.

Where praytell is the negligence exception that you declared existed anyway ?

?Where praytell is the negligence exception that you declared existed anyway ?

sigh learn to read... I explained above. There is no exception for negligence, they immunity is limited. DUH!

(think dude, if the immunity wasn't limited why did they have more words in the law? read and think dude)

Taltos if you genuinely want to understand this and not just want to argue nonsense, here is how you understand it.

Read the law again and replace the word "provided" with the word "if" and you'll better understand the law.

(or delete the words "Provided, however, That" and it is more clear)

paul: the immediate cause of the dead was their failure to leave the city, and that was the fault of the COE? If you're going to go searching for villians, why not sue the city for their incompetence in failing to get the people out, for failing to devote more money to flood control? the developers who built houses that would be so easily flooded (what, they never heard of stilts?)? or look to themselves, who chose to live where they did and were stupid, yes stupid, to trust any government agency to keep them safe (that is, if they even bothered to consider the risks of living in NO).

but that is beside the point of this string and my comments. your side can't recover, won't recover and, no matter what you say, it is about, as I think you put it once, bazillions of dollars. try as you might, the lipstick ain't working.

Paul, first of all, "STFU" is not an appropriate response. Period. Your use of it is just juvenile, and you should be embarrassed by your behavior.

Secondly, your interpretation of the immunity clause has no support in the text and follows no legal rule of statutory interpretation. You appear to have no caselaw to support your interpretation. If you have any court's interpretation of the statute that supports your interpretation, then cite it.

But most importantly, you've not bothered to read the court's opinion. This alone shows that your criticism of the legal conclusion is not serious.

>Secondly, your interpretation of the immunity clause has no support in the text

I've quoted it 10 times.. what more do you want?

OK I typed an explainer of the law above (which you ignored) so you type one. YOU TELL ME what the law says. If you can't then STFU. ;-)

Paul, the only one not comprehending what the law states is you. Either you're actively trying to remain ignorant or your facility with the English language is sorely lacking.

The law states that US is immune from damage claims provided that they take the steps lined out in the act. Those steps being for the Corps to enact procedings to purchase any property prone to flooding that they can't/won't protect with levees.

All of which is beside the point as NO had levees which makes your argument baseless and asinine.

Steve you such a classless asshole. -- I do have to give you the point that you at least are not so intellectually dishonet that you finally backed away form the "written law" nonsense...

But instead you've taken to bashing dead people.

Classy.

>The law states that US is immune from damage claims provided that they take the steps lined out in the act.

No. Let me quote it AGAIN for you.

--------
No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided,... it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees,
--------

They built the leeves that where flawed and they failed.

I can explain it to you but I can't make you smart enough to understand it or intellectually honest enough to admit you are full of shit.

If the purpose was to grant them blanket immunity why have any more language in the law?

I don't get what is with you people. How hard is it to accept the following realities.

1) The Corps knew the floodwall design was flawed before they built it.

2) They built it anyway.

3) It failed before the storm even got there killing 1200 people and destroying a city.

4) They where negligent in building a flood control system they knew was flawed.

5) That the law cited DOES NOT protect them from gross negligence.

6) If there where any justice in the world they would pay. Big time.

=============

Numbers 1-4 are not opinion that is documents (and linked) fact.

Numbers 5 and 6 are obvious to anyone who can read.

What is it... What is it that makes it so hard for some of you to admit all the above is true?

I genuinely just don't get it. Why to you hold to to mythology in the face of facts?

Are you just jerking my chain and you know better? OK you got me, I fell for it.. It that it? A big game?

Now actually finish the sentence you keep quoting the first snippet of (...it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers to institute proceedings on behalf of the United States Government to acquire either the absolute ownership of the lands so subjected to overflow and damage or floodage rights over such lands.)

Your attempts at trying to obfuscate the obvious text of the law might be amusing if they weren't so pathetic.

Paul, this morning: "this isn't about money Steve"

Paul, this afternoon: "If there where(sic) any justice in the world they would pay. Big time."

And with that, I make this my last post on the subject, as I was taught it just ain't right toying with someone who has so lost it that he can't keep his storyline straight for a whole day.

No, Paul, it is not obvious to anyone who can read, as it is not obvious at all. The language you hand your hat on is not a limitation on the grant of immunity.

The language you hang your hat upon is misinterpreted by you. The "provided .." language just means that if the govt does not build levees on a stretch of the banks of the Mississippi, they are required to purchase the land that is not protected. It has nothing to do with a limitation on the immunity itself.

As I said, your failure to even bother to read the court's opinion shows your lack of seriousness ( as if that needed to be shown after your lack was made clear by your language ).

The suit was written with the knowledge that the Act was a problem. That's why the suit did not even allege what Paul claims are facts. The suit actually alleged in its first count that the dredging of the canal was negligent. So it was not obvious to the plaintiffs' attorneys that the Act did not apply. The court saw that as a failed attempt to get around the immunity language. The second count alleged negligent construction and evidently even the plaintiffs' counsel realized it was not going to survive a 12(b) motion and they made the weak claim that it was not an authorized project and so not within the grant of immunity - another losing argument.

This is the court's opinion, which explains in quite detailed language why Paul is flat out wrong on the legal issues. The claims based on the design and construction are indeed covered by the immunity provisions, with citations to a USSCt opinion from 2001, and the claims with respect to the dredging permit are immune under the Federal Tort Claims Acts' provisions.

Nice try Steve but you obviously can't dispute any of the facts so you play word games.

No.. it ain't about money.. You know what I really want Steve? I want the people who did this charged with criminal negligent homicied. And I want them to die in jail. THAT would be making them pay. But we'll never get that so yes, we want them held accountable in any way we can.

You can't dispute the facts, so you'll play word games and be an asshole.

Ignoring Paul's antics for the moment, there is something else pathetic in reporting of the court's dismissal.

The reaction of various groups to the judge's order. We have silly and vapid comments about how great it was that the judge found that the canals were negligently constructed. From the NYT article:

Sandy Rosenthal of the activist group Levees.org said: "Clearly Judge Duval is frustrated by what he had to do. It's outrageous these levees were fragile. He and I agree the corps was responsible for the failure of the levees. It's a positive thing that Judge Duval outlined all those things in his statements."

Maybe its positive, but it is meaningless. What matters is the legal conclusion, not expressions of meaningless sympathy.

Ok you guys win, you're either playing games or just to fucking stupid to understand simple simple facts.

Either way, you win.

No, Paul, neither is true. What is true is that you don't understand the legal issues, you pronounce upon them nonetheless, and you tell people who disagree with you to "STFU" because you cannot disengage your emotional reactions.

>The reaction of various groups to the judge's order. We have silly and vapid comments about how great it was that the judge found that the canals were negligently constructed.

You just don't get it. (and you read the article by Adam Nossiter which explained it) And this is the thing Steve will never admit to...

IT'S NOT ABOUT MONEY..

In many ways people in NOLA don't care if they won or lost... Here, lemme give you the heart of the Nossiter story...

They lined up in cars and on foot and jammed the streets around the agency's district headquarters, [to turn in the paperwork -ed] acting out what has been a loudly spoken article of faith since the days in 2005 when water covered 80 percent of New Orleans and ruined the homes of thousands: the corps -- not nature, not a record-breaking storm surge and not local politics or local negligence -- was to blame.

You still have assholes like Steve who after YEARS of the evidence being out there still spread bullshit mis-information about why NOLA flooded.

Part of the "justice" here is setting the record straight. Here we have a court of law which found the Corps was responsible and "grossly negligent." -- For many that is a victory.

Personally, I'm not a touchy feely kinda guy... Having the hollow victory is nice and all but I want a tangible manifestation of their culpability.

You don't get it, you can't get it. You didn't live in a city of a million people destroyed at the hands of government. -- And then you further didn't have to suffer asshole like Steve who blame the dead for their own deaths.

As I said in my very first post about the suit.

I [we] personally sued for the sum of $750,000. And I hope we get every penny.... Or should I say I hope they have to pay every penny. If the judge told me the good news is that he ruled in my favor but the bad news was I had to donate the money to charity, that would be fine by me.

You can't get that becasue you didn't live thru it. To the folks who did, it is plain as day.

Paul, the judge did not find the Corps "grossly negligent" as a legal conclusion, his comments to that extent were legally meaningless given the posture of the case - especially because of the kind of motion he was ruling upon. The only legally important part of the ruling was that the complaint did not state a cause of action because of the immunity provisions of the FCA and FTCA.

Because of the form of motion, the court was required to assume the truth of the factual allegations of the complaint, there were not actually proven.

You really don't get it and too assholic to even try.

For some reason I'm not surprised by either.

Paul, is there anything left after washing your mouth out?

I know I said goodbye, but this is like passing a car crash, I just can't keep from slowing down and looking at the carnage. In this case, the carnage is Paul, who once seemed to be a reasonably decent guy, only to completely lose it as a result of what happened. I hope for his sake and for that of his family and what remaining friends he has that he isn't sitting at home staring and mumbling at a wall full of newspaper clippings and pictures of those he considers responsible, vowing to continue his crusade no matter how many times judges rule he has no case... but judging from his ill-tempered comments, that is exactly the picture I see in my mind. Sad, just sad.