Louisiana Government Wee Bit Out of Control

[David Lockmiller]

Louisiana ‘Deliberately Indifferent’ to Keeping Inmates Past Release Date, Justice Dept. Says

Headline New York Times (January 26, 2023)

The Justice Department has found that Louisiana’s longstanding practice of detaining more than a quarter of inmates beyond their court-ordered release dates violates the Constitution and accused state officials of ignoring repeated calls to overhaul the unjust system.

The department, citing evidence uncovered by lawyers representing incarcerated people, concluded that the state has known about the problem for at least a decade and done little to address it.

I wonder if the majority of the United States Supreme Court would agree that this is a constitutional violation.

[Dave B]

I can't imagine any valid reason for holding someone past his or her release date. I wonder what the state's "reason" or excuse is.

[Gene C]

I know the answer, but I can't seem to fit it inside this box.

a. I'll do nothing and let someone else deal with the problem.
b. I'll take a personal interest in getting to know my neighbor and "love my neighbor as myself". I'll just have to get more involved, share with others this wonderful person called me.
I just love a good illustration - The Parable of the Good Samaritan https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV
c. I'll watch more daytime TV. They have all the answers.
d-y. More answers that you really don't want to read...
Z. Wait, there's more. I just can't squeeze it all in

[Dave B]

Louisiana might opt for "a".
They have so far.

[David Lockmiller]

Senator JOHN NEELY KENNEDY, Republican from Louisiana, is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts. He may be able to provide some needed advice on this constitutional issue to the Louisiana state government officials.

[AussieMick]

I'm surprised that a "No Win No Fee" lawyer hasnt offered to sue the State govt ( I'm not exactly a fan of those lawyers, "ambulance chasers", but I guess they serve a purpose).

I would have thought illegal deprivation of liberty is a serious offence and one that allows for a claim for $$$$. Maybe the govt cannot be sued? (Like the British Crown ? Hmm not sure about that).

[David Lockmiller]

(01-28-2023 09:50 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I'm surprised that a "No Win No Fee" lawyer hasn't offered to sue the State govt.

(I'm not exactly a fan of those lawyers, . . . but I guess they serve a purpose.)

I would have thought illegal deprivation of liberty is a serious offence and one that allows for a claim for $$$$.

Maybe the govt cannot be sued? (Like the British Crown ? Hmm not sure about that.)

Lawyers refer to this as "sovereign immunity." In essence: "You cannot sue the king (or, government sovereign) for a wrong done by the king (or, the sovereign government, including wrongdoing by federal government employees)."

The evolution of the concept of "sovereign immunity" in the United States has an interesting history (Source: Wikipedia - Federal Tort Claims Act):

Congress considered passage of legislation such as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for more than twenty years. Then, a tragic event occurred in 1945 that brought the Congress to legislative action.

The Federal Tort Claims Act was passed following the 1945 B-25 Empire State Building crash, where a bomber piloted in thick fog by a U. S. [military officer] crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. Eight months after the crash, the U.S. government offered money to families of the victims.

Some accepted, but others initiated a lawsuit that resulted in landmark legislation. The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, for the first time, gave American citizens the right to sue the federal government. Although the crash was not the initial catalyst for the bill, which had been pending in Congress for more than two decades, the statute was made retroactive to 1945 in order to allow victims of that crash to seek recovery.

The FTCA provides the exclusive remedy for claims based upon the negligent or wrongful acts of government employees, 28 USCS § 2679(a). By statute, 28 USCS § 1346(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction in the district courts over tort claims against the government. Punitive or exemplary damages are not available against the government. Furthermore, no allowance is permitted by the FTCA to cover the plaintiffs legal fees and expenses, such as expert witness fees. The sole remedy available to plaintiff under the FTCA is compensatory money damages, intended to make the plaintiff whole once again.

Thus, for the first time in the history of this democracy, Congress grudgingly yielded a measure of sovereign immunity in granting to every citizen the right to recover compensatory damages only, for claims based upon the negligent or wrongful acts of federal government employees. This long-delayed legislated act of simple justice was accomplished by means of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[AussieMick]

Thanks very much , David. Very interesting thread.

[David Lockmiller]

(01-29-2023 02:22 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  Thanks very much , David. Very interesting thread.

You haven't heard the best part. Congress, in the statute provisions -- Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USCS § 2678, limits the amount that an attorney can accept or bill a client for the necessary legal representation on a contingency fee basis to 25 percent of the compensatory damages awarded by the court. Attorney violators are subject to to a $2,000 fine and a year in prison. According to the American Bar Association, the going market rate for contingency fee arrangements is thirty-three to forty percent of the court awarded damages in none-FTCA cases. That is why many FTCA claimants must represent themselves (pro se) in court proceedings or forfeit their legitimate FTCA claims forever.

[AussieMick]

Very clever by the Govt. Catch 22. You can sue if you can get a lawyer that will get paid about half less than in 'normal' cases (provided they win) ... or represent yourself ( and "have a fool as a client").

[David Lockmiller]

(01-29-2023 04:40 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Very clever by the Govt. Catch 22. You can sue if you can get a lawyer that will get paid about half less than in 'normal' cases (provided they win) ... or represent yourself ( and "have a fool as a client").

I protest the part of "having a fool for a client." It is a matter of a "no choice" choice for the victim of federal government employee corruption, including judges.

[AussieMick]

Yes. True.
As a sort of aside ...
Here in Australia a Royal Commission is investigating the previous Govt's errors (what a surprise).
"Robodebt" concerns a major 'stuff-up'. The previous govt wanted to recoup money paid in error to welfare beneficiaries (unemployed mainly). Anyway, they sent them threatening letters demanding overpayments (calculated by computer hence "Robodebt") be paid back.

As could have been guessed ... the computer made mistakes and innocent people were threatened. Some committed suicide. The Govt dept had been told that legal advice should have been obtained but that was ignored.

https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/...ission.pdf

Today the words "misfeasance in public office" were used . And I thought of this Thread.

"There are two forms of liability for misfeasance or misconduct in public office. The first involves targeted malice by a public officer, so for example this could be conduct specifically intended to injure a person. If a public officer had this intention, it is irrelevant whether they exceeded their power. The second type of liability is when a public officer acts knowing they have no power to do so – and that the act will probably injure a person or persons. Here the element of bad faith arises, so it’s not necessary to show that the public officer acted with the purpose or object of inflicting harm on the claimant."

Now the following is a very lengthy document but you might be interested (and have a few hours ... else maybe speed-read it).
It makes very little mention of the USA though.
MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE: A VERY PECULIAR TORT
https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets...35_1_1.pdf

BTW
A "Royal Commission" ... The Commission itself cannot prosecute individuals and its findings are non-binding. However, it can make recommendations to do so.

A non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigation