Mediaboss Marketing

If you own a business, the leftists in Congress are coming after you. The only thing standing in their way is the American Constitution.

Whether you own a mom-and-pop diner, an auto repair shop or shares in a multinational corporation, your property is at risk.

The Constitutions takings clause was designed to protect us from government grabbing our property without paying fairly for it.

Yet last year, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act, boasting that it would enable Medicare to negotiate lower prices for medications for seniors.

Negotiate is a lie. Under the new law, government can strong-arm companies to sell their most popular medications at a price Uncle Sam dictates, or be taxed out of existence in a matter of weeks.

On June 6, the pharmaceutical giant Merck sued, claiming the law violates its constitutional rights.

Amen. This lawsuit is a red flag for everyone in America who owns anything or hopes to.

The actual language of the law is breathtakingly coercive, but lets face it, most members of Congress dont bother to read bills before voting on them.

The law says that any company that refuses to sell at the governments price will be hit with a tax that starts at 186 percent of the drugs revenues on Day 1 and is hiked daily until it reaches a ruinous 1,900 percent of revenues not just from government sales but all sales.

That would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes per day.

The company has no escape. Contrast this coercion with price controls in socialist-leaning European countries, where drug companies can decline to sell at the government price.

Merck explains that it will be legally compelled to sell its most valuable products for a fraction of their value, on pain of yet more draconian penalties. This is not negotiation. It is tantamount to extortion.

The law also gags the company from disclosing what Medicare officials say about price negotiations behind closed doors. Worse, the law requires the company to publicly call the price rammed down its throat fair.

Is this even America? Congress limits free speech and requires companies to state things they dont believe.

Mercks lawsuit objects, Our Constitution does not countenance compelled speech in service of state propaganda.

Congress needs a refresher course on the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment bars the government from taking your property without just compensation.

And the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to say something against your will. These are the bases of Mercks lawsuit.

The law being challenged is exactly what youd find in George Orwells 1984, a novel depicting socialist despotism. The government dictates the price for your product but calls it a negotiation.

If you refuse, your business is taxed to death overnight. You are gagged from disclosing what is happening and forced to declare the price fair.

If Mercks lawsuit fails, who are the next victims? Auto makers could be forced to sell cars for the federal fleet for $10,000 a piece instead of a fair price.

What about bed sheets for the Army, airplane parts for the Air Force or restaurant meals for government employees?

Mercks lawsuit raises only constitutional issues, but Americans also need to know that price controls on pharmaceuticals could be dangerous to their health.

In countries that cap prices, patients have reduced access to new drugs. Patients in France get only half the new treatments that U.S. patients get, according to University of Chicago economist Tomas Philipson.

Last week, the American Society of Clinical Oncology announced a treatment osimertinib that improves survival by 51 percent for lung cancer patients who have had surgery and face a recurrence.

As a survivor myself, I cut out the article and put it in my desk drawer, hoping I wont need it but glad its a possibility.

Many politicians think vilifying drug companies is good politics. They ignore the devastating impact of price controls on the pipeline for future cures.

This is a legitimate policy debate. But obeying the Constitution is not optional. Congress members swear an oath to it.

Mercks lawsuit is headed to the Supreme Court.

Tell Biden and leftist lawmakers to read the 4,543 words in the Constitution and honor them.

Creators.com

More here:
Left-wing Democrats Running Roughshod Over Constitutional ... - The New York Sun

Tether mints $1 billion in USDT, sparks market fear, CTO explain "it's for chain swaps" | Credit; Shutterstock

Key Takeaways

USDT and minting company Tether come into the spotlight this week for minting a further $1 billion on an Ethereum blockchain. Tether CTO clarified, this amount will be used as inventory for next period issuance requests and chain swaps. Crypto analyst draws worries that USDT might be next in the crosshairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

He claimed, Why not go straight for the jugular and starve crypto of its liquidity..

This recent minting follows the previous mint, which was less than 2 months prior. Tether has minted $16 billion in 2023 alone, while its market capitalization is at $83 billion.

Understandably, the event caught the attention of many stakeholders, nudging company CTO, Paolo Ardoino to explain the move. 1B USDt inventory replenish on Ethereum Network. Note this is a[sic] authorized but not issued transaction, meaning that this amount will be used as inventory for next period issuance requests and chain swaps, tweeted Ardoino.

Chain swaps explained the process of moving crypto tokens from one blockchain to another, enabling users to utilize their tokens on multiple blockchains simultaneously. Ardoino also explained that the $1 billion mint was to make sure theres enough liquidity to enable such chain swaps.

Prior to Adoinos tweet explaining the $1 billion mint, USDT price dipped due to market fears. However, it recovered almost immediately after the CTO explained the situation. Nevertheless, many fear that Tether/USDT might become the SECs next target as the tokens continue to gain popularity in 2023.

At this point, its no secret that the SEC is at a severe war with the crypto industry. Earlier this month, the commission filed thirteen lawsuits against the worlds biggest crypto exchange, Binance, for a number of alleged crimes.

The SEC also filed a lawsuit against Ripple, for allegedly trading in unregistered securities. They even sued Coinbase, the biggest US-based crypto exchange, for allegedly committing the same crime, yet refusing to put proper regulations in place for crypto trading when Coinbase officially requested they do.

More importantly, the SEC is not only going to war against the trade of decentralized tokens, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, but theyre also attempting to remove the legitimacy of stablecoins, as they did with BUSD.

In the documentation for the Binance lawsuits, the SEC specifically said that the exchange violated laws by Binance and BAM Trading with the unregistered offer and sale of Binances own crypto assets, including a so-called exchange token, BNB, a so-called stablecoin, Binance USD (BUSD).

According to Miles Deutscher, a crypto analyst, Tethers USD-tied token USDT makes up 76% of the entire stablecoin market. USDT, a coin that severs itself from the volatility of decentralized tokens, such as Bitcoin by basing its value on the USD while providing digital-based transfer solutions and ease of movement could potentially be the next target for the SECs rampage on crypto.

If youre the SEC and you really want to kill crypto, then your next target would be Tether. Why? 76% of all stablecoins on exchanges is USDT. Why not go straight for the jugular and starve crypto of its liquidity.. tweeted Deutscher

The SEC hasnt just gone for Binance, Coinbase, and Ripple. Other exchanges, such as Kraken and Bittrex, as well as a crypto lending platform called Nexo, have been on the receiving end of the commissions attack on the industry.

The irony is that the basis of many of the SECs allegations are based on the cryptocurrencies that they see as unregulated registers, while, as previously stated, it is the SEC that stands in the way of a proper regulatory reform on crypto.

Coin Metrics co-founder Nic Carter coined the term Operation Chokepoint 2.0, for which he details the issues created by regulators, alleging that they deliberately are destroying the crypto industry to create stricter control on the finance market.

Among the text within the legal petition sent to Washington DC are allegations such as The federal bank regulators are also refusing to perform their non-discretionary duties when doing so will benefit the cryptocurrency industry, as well as Operation Choke Point 2.0 deprives business of their constitutional rights to due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

It is well-settled that when a federal agency attaches a derogatory label to an individual or business, and this stigmatizing label causes the business to lose a bank account or broadly precludes them from the pursuit of their chosen trade, the agency has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, unless if first afforded the individual or business a right to be heard.

Carter even tweeted I dont want to alarm, but since the turn of the year, a new Operation Choke Point type operation began targeting the crypto space in the US. it is a well-coordinated effort to marginalize the industry and cut of [sic] its connectivity to the banking system and its working.

Being the most popular stablecoin out there, USDT, created by Tether is considered the flagship of USD-based stablecoins. And, while many worry about the volatility of decentralized tokens such as Bitcoin, stablecoins provide a safe way to bridge the gap between crypto and fiat currencies.

Should the SEC go after Tether and USDT, a significant trade sum would be forced into a halt, potentially starving the market of fiat value, and consequently affecting the lives of many crypto-based businesses.

Excerpt from:
Tether SEC Action? USDT Selling Floods Liquidity Pools in Wake of ... - CCN.com

University of California, Los Angeles, alumnus and associate professor Bobby Rimas of the American legal systems course at California State University, Los Angeles Downtown LA Campus, lectured on the importance of subpoenas and what should be done to ensure compliance on May 10.

Additionally, Rimas indicated that subpoenas allow for parties to learn about information or evidence that may be used for their cases.

Rimas then introduced guest speaker Andrew Beshai, an associate attorney at Larson LLP.

Beshai spoke about the difference between civil and criminal subpoenas, how subpoenas can request for court appearance, document productions or both. Furthermore, civil subpoenas can be issued by any lawyer but not a prosecutor.

Beshai also discussed the Fifth Amendment constitutional right not to self-incriminate.

Prior to his role as a federal prosecutor, Beshai was a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, where he investigated and litigated discrimination cases against state and local entities in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Colorado.

As a trial lawyer with the DOJ Civil Rights Division, Beshai also worked on complex matters, including taking depositions, developing discovery strategy and arguing motions. He graduated valedictorian from Loyola Law School, where he served for two years as an adjunct professor teaching legal drafting.

Rimas indicated that Beshais presentation was very informative and gave students a clear picture as to the significance of subpoenas and what they should consider doing when assisting their legal teams with such matters.

In addition to being an associate professor, Rimas is a paralegal at the Larson LLP law firm and an adjunct faculty member at the University of La Verne. He is also the vice chair of the special committee on diversity, equity and inclusion for a Los Angeles-based nonprofit organization and a board member for the UCLA Lambda Alumni Association.

Rimas graduated with a bachelors degree in history from UCLA and a Master of Legal Studies degree, cum laude, from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

He is the past chair/president of the UCLA Pilipino Alumni Association and past president of the Los Angeles Paralegal Association.

The rest is here:
Essential Education: Professor, attorney discuss importance of ... - LA Downtown News Online

On May 25, 1996, Kristin Smart was murdered by her classmate Paul Flores at California Polytechnic State University. He walked free for nearly three decades until a podcast helped solve the case.

Kristin Smart disappeared on May 25, 1996, while walking back to her dorm at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California after an off-campus party. No one saw the 19-year-old again and six years later, in 2002, Smart was declared legally dead in absentia.

For decades, it seemed like no one would ever know, for certain, what happened to Kristin Smart. The police had a person of interest in Paul Flores, Smarts classmate who walked her home the night she vanished and the last person to see her alive. But Flores maintained his innocence, and police were unable to gather enough hard evidence against him.

Then, in 2019, a budding freelance journalist named Chris Lambert created the podcast Your Own Backyard, which covered Smarts disappearance and reignited interest in the case, helping to bring new information to light. These developments galvanized further investigation into Smarts murder, which produced enough evidence to officially name Paul Flores as her killer.

Heres everything you need to know about the case.

Kristin Denise Smart was born on February 20, 1977, in Augsburg, Bavaria, West Germany, to Stan and Denise Smart, who were both teaching children of American military service members who were overseas. The Smarts later moved to Stockton, California, where their children attended school.

In 1995, Kristin Smart graduated from high school in Stockton and enrolled at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California.

Then, on May 25, 1996, Smart now a 19-year-old freshman attended an off-campus party. She left around 2 a.m., but she didnt leave alone. She was accompanied by three other Cal Poly students, including Paul Flores.

Unbeknownst to Smart, Flores had earned a negative reputation among women at Cal Poly. According to a 2006 Los Angeles Times report, he had been nicknamed Chester the Molester for his behavior at parties.

According to Flores, after he and Smart split off from the other students who had left the party, he and Smart walked toward his dorm in Santa Lucia Hall. He claimed that Smart then headed to her room in the nearby Muir Hall by herself. Kristin Smart was never seen again after that night.

Two days later, Smarts neighbor in her dorm reached out to campus police and Smarts parents, as Smart had seemingly vanished into thin air. It was only because of this students insistence that campus police opened an investigation, as they had initially assumed that Smart had voluntarily disappeared for a brief period and would be back on campus soon.

An incident report from campus police at the time also seemed to judge Smart harshly for drinking alcohol at the off-campus party shortly before her disappearance, according to her family. The report read:

Smart does not have any close friends at Cal Poly. Smart appeared to be under the influence of alcohol on Friday night. Smart was talking with and socializing with several different males at the party. Smart lives her life in her own way, not conforming to typical teenage behavior. These observations are in no way implying that her behavior caused her disappearance, but they provide a picture of her conduct on the night of her disappearance.

Despite the slow start of the investigation, missing-person posters and billboards began to pop up in public places and along roads in the area, offering rewards for information that could help find Kristin Smart.

Soon, two investigators from the district attorneys office were called in to help the campus police with the case, and they quickly zeroed in on Flores. When they interviewed him, they noticed numerous inconsistencies in his story, most notably his changing story about how he got a black eye.

Flores was eventually identified as a person of interest, but he denied any involvement in Smarts disappearance. And despite his suspicious behavior, police struggled to definitively link him to the crime.

In June 1996, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Office took over the Kristin Smart case. The Cal Poly campus was then combed over by police and volunteers alike. When cadaver dogs were brought in to search the dorms at Cal Poly, three of them reacted to what had been Flores room.

Then, in the fall of 1996, a woman named Mary Lassiter was renting a house that belonged to Paul Flores mother Susan in Arroyo Grande, California. During her stay, she found a single womans earring in the driveway that appeared to match a necklace worn by Smart on one of the billboards she had seen of the missing teenager. Lassiter turned the earring over to the police but they lost it before they could mark it as evidence.

Susan Flores house naturally became the focus of widespread speculation, though police only searched it later on in the investigation. Though the backyard was searched several times, no further evidence was found there.

As reported by Yahoo! News, police eventually did find biological evidence of Smarts body at a different Flores property but that was more than two decades after the first investigation. With police unable to build a strong enough case early on, Flores was not initially arrested or charged.

Then, in 1997, the Smart family filed a $40 million wrongful death lawsuit against Paul Flores, still the main person of interest in the case.

During a deposition later that year for the civil suit, Flores invoked the Fifth Amendment 27 times on the advice of his lawyer.

The only answers he provided were his name, his birth date, and his Social Security number. He would not, on the other hand, answer questions about whether he was a Cal Poly student in May 1996, the name of his father, or even if he cooked hamburgers at his job at Garlands Hamburgers.

The tactic seemingly worked, with police soon admitting that without any new information from Flores, the investigation had stalled.

We need Paul Flores to tell us what happened to Kristin Smart, said San Luis Obispos then-Sheriff Ed Williams. The fact of the matter is we have very qualified detectives who have conducted well over a hundred interviews, and everything leads to Mr. Flores. There are no other suspects. So absent something from Mr. Flores, I dont see us completing this case.

In 2002, six years after her disappearance, Kristin Smart was declared legally dead in absentia and Flores was still a free man, according to The New York Times. For several years, the case would remain at a standstill, and the Smarts seemed to be no closer to getting justice for their daughter.

But things started to look up in 2011 when San Luis Obispo got a new sheriff.

When Sheriff Ian Parkinson took the job, he made a promise to the Smart family that solving Kristin Smarts case would be a top priority.

And he kept his promise. Parkinsons department would carry out 23 search warrants and 96 interviews. They also collected 258 pieces of evidence. Through it all, they still had only one suspect: Paul Flores.

Still, the case against Flores was missing evidence. But in 2019, the investigation got some much-needed aid from an unlikely source: a podcast focused on Smarts disappearance by freelance journalist Chris Lambert.

Lambert, who was only eight years old when Kristin Smart disappeared in 1996 and had no initial connection with her family, helped spark a wave of new information about the case that would help lead to Flores arrest.

According to Vanity Fair, Chris Lambert lived about half an hour from Cal Polys campus, and had no formal training as a journalist or documentarian, yet the Kristin Smart case endlessly fascinated him.

One day, he emailed his girlfriend a link to a Los Angeles Times story about Smart, jokingly saying that he was going to solve the case. He also told a writer friend of his about his interest in Smarts disappearance, and the friend told him that she remembered the Smart story from years earlier.

That same friend later emailed Lambert with more information: I cant believe I didnt tell you; I went to school with the guy who walked her home that night. I went to high school with him. We all called him Scary Paul.

This inspired him to create a podcast about the case in 2019, and it quickly became a hit, garnering nearly 75,000 streams on the day that the first episode was posted. As word spread about the podcast, more and more people began reaching out to Lambert with new information about Smart and Flores. Multiple people alleged seeing Flores taking advantage of several inebriated women, and some even accused Flores of sexual assault.

Lambert also began a working relationship with the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Office, sharing sources and letting the police interview them before he would. When Paul Flores was finally arrested for Kristin Smarts murder in April 2021, many people including the police and Smarts family looked to Lamberts podcast as a driving force behind the investigation. (Pauls father Ruben was also arrested and charged with being an accessory after the murder, as it was believed he helped his son hide Smarts body.)

Chris was able to fill in a part of the puzzle along with the dedicated members of the sheriffs office who worked this case over the years and the district attorneys office who successfully prosecuted this case, Sheriff Parkinson said of the podcasts impact on the investigation.

Lambert was in attendance throughout the murder trial in 2022, which ended with Paul Flores, who was 45 years old at the time, being found guilty of the first-degree murder of Kristin Smart. He was later sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for the crime. (Pauls father, Ruben Flores, was acquitted of the accessory charge by a separate jury.)

It started to hit me in waves, and I just started crying, Lambert said. I was thinking about where this started, was thinking about my relationship with the Smart family.

Lambert had met Denise Smart shortly after he started the podcast and expressed his desire to share her daughters story the real story, not one that, like early reports, judged Smart for partying the night she vanished.

It was that victim shaming, Denise Smart said. People dont want to connect with that, because its like, Oh, its that girl with the shorts going to a party getting drunk? Oh, well, thats what happens when you do that. And my kids would never do that. Sharing the real story is so important. My friends and I call Chris an angel in disguise.

After learning about the case of Kristin Smart, see how DNA helped to solve a 40-year-old cold case murder of a California kindergartner. Then, dive into these 11 cold cases that were solved thanks to Unsolved Mysteries.

Visit link:
Inside The Murder Of Kristin Smart And How Her Killer Was Caught - All That's Interesting

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana (SRA-L) is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.[1]

SRA-L was a named defendant in a suit by plaintiffs who own land in Louisiana and Texas. Plaintiffs levied allegations that years-long mismanagement of the Toledo Bend reservoir by SRA-L[2] culminated in damage to plaintiffs properties via flooding, violating their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs alleged that despite advance knowledge of the likelihood for significant downstream flooding, SRA-L decided to open spillway gates freeing water from the reservoir into the Sabine River to alleviate elevated reservoir volumes from a cataclysmic rain storm in March of 2016.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the federal district courts order denying[3] SRA-Ls Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by applying the Circuits well-established six-factor test of Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 744-45 (5th Cir. 1986). An entity classified as an arm of the state would be entitled to sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment; in contrast, a political subdivision is not afforded the same protection. The burden of proof falls on the entity seeking immunity and SRA-L failed to meet its burden.

The six Clark factors are as follows:

(1) whether state statutes and case law characterize the agency as an arm of the state;

(2) the source of funds for the entity;

(3) the degree of local autonomy the entity enjoys;

(4) whether the entity is concerned primarily with local, as opposed to statewide, problems;

(5) whether the entity has authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and

(6) whether the entity has the right to hold and use property.[4]

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit considered each factor in turn, focusing primarily on factor number twothe most significant of the six. Since one of the Eleventh Amendments primary objectives is preservation of the state treasury, the main question when determining whether an entity is considered as an organ of the State is its source of funding (i.e. who will be liable for payment of a judgment levied against it). By analyzing various Louisiana Statutes pertaining to the SRA-L,[5] the Fifth Circuit concluded that SRA-L appears to have near-total financial independence.[6] The Fifth Circuit found SRA-L failed to meet its burden of showing that the state would be liable for a judgment against it either directly or indirectly (via responsibility for general debt or because the state provides the majority of the levee districts budget).

As for the five other factors, only one weighed in favor of finding the SRA-L as an arm of the state as opposed to a political subdivision, and only slightly. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that state statutes and case law characterize SRA-L as an arm of the state; but caveated that the factor was restricted and given the inconsistent descriptions in the same statutes and the lack of a more-definite characterization in either statute or case law.[7] The Fifth Circuit noted that even though the SRA-L was made part of the umbrella of the executive branch via its placement in the Department of Transportation and Development after its creation, it maintained substantial control over its operations. That retention of autonomy tilted against finding SRA-L an arm of the state.

To support its position regarding the third factorthe degree of local autonomy the entity enjoysSRA-L harped on the fact that its thirteen board members are gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the state senate with no involvement by local governing bodies or local legislators. The lower court found that although SRA-L board members were susceptible to state influence on account of their serving at the governors behest, the parish residency requirement for board members imposed sufficient limits on the governors control. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that this factor weighed minimally against finding SRA-L as an arm of the state, but for a different reason. The Fifth Circuit focused on the autonomy the SRA-L enjoys in its functional decision-making such as acquiring property, incurring debts, borrowing money, entering contracts, and even establishing an enforcement division. To the extent that independent management authority mattered more than commissioner/board member autonomy, the Fifth Circuit found this factor ultimately weighed toward SRA-L being a political subdivision rather than an arm of the state.

Regarding whether the entity principally focuses on local (as opposed to statewide) issues, the Fifth Circuit found the case cited by SRA-L in support of this factor inappositewherein a state university was afforded Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Fifth Circuit determined that the SRA-L primarily dealt with local or regional concerns, unlike a state university fulfilling statewide higher education demands.

The last two factors hold the least weight. SRA-L did not contest the lower courts finding that the fifth factor did not aid in a finding of SRA-L being an arm of the state. La. R.S. 38:232(B)(2) clearly delineates SRA-Ls authority to sue and be sued in its own name. As for the sixth and final factor, though SRA-L pointed to La. R.S. 38:2325(B) which states that it holds property as an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana[;] the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the statute also states [t]itle to all property acquired by the Authority shall be taken in its corporate name. The argument that the property ultimately belongs to the State and thus weighs in favor of sovereign immunity has been previously rejected by the Circuitand was rejected again here.[8] The pertinent issue is whether the entity has the power to hold property in its name and under state statutes, which the SRA-L clearly does.

The Fifth Circuits ruling in Bonin will impact future flood-damage litigation by making it easier for plaintiff landowners to bring claims against various State River Authorities for decisions made in the maintenance, conservation, and supervision of dams, reservoirs, rivers, and streams in their respective watersheds.

Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (Liskow & Lewis) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney-client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe, please use the SafeUnsubscribe link located at the bottom of every email that you receive.

[1] Perry Bonin, et al., v. Sabine River Auth., State of Louisiana, No. 20-40138 c/w No. 22-40433 (5th Cir. 2023).

[2] After its creation by the Louisiana legislature in 1950 as a conservation and reclamation district, the SRA-L entered a joint venture with the Sabine River Authority, Texas (SRA-T) to build a dam and reservoir to provide electrical power, promote industrial development in both States, conserve water for agricultural purposes, and create fishing, recreation, and commercial development. Stallworth v. McFarland, 350 F. Supp. 920, 926 (W.D. La. 1972).

[3] Denials of motions to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds fall within the collateral order doctrine, and are thus immediately appealable. Texas v. Caremark, Inc., 584 F.3d 655, 658 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2004)).

[4] Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 690 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2002).

[5] E.g. La. R.S. 38:2324 (B)(1) and 2325(A)(5).

[6] Bonin at 9.

[7] Bonin at 7.

[8] See Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 696 (5th Cir. 2002).

Here is the original post:
Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog