Court Ruling May Stop 9/11 Air Quality Lawsuits

Looks also like Giuliani has made a complete 180 when it comes to his position on the issue of the toxic WTC dust and how it has affected 9/11 first responders:

http://wcbstv.com/video/?id=91462@wcbs.dayport.com

Source: http://wcbstv.com/politics/local_story_110160127.html

Apr 20, 2007 4:06 pm US/Eastern

Court Ruling May Stop 9/11 Air Quality Lawsuits

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK An appeals court ruling could spell trouble for New Yorkers suing the Environmental Protection Agency and its former chief for saying that sooty Lower Manhattan air was safe to breathe after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

A three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared this week that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and other agency officials can't be held constitutionally liable for making rosy declarations about air quality in the days following the World Trade Center's destruction.

The opinion, written by the court's chief judge, Dennis Jacobs, said opening EPA workers up to lawsuits for giving out bad information during a crisis could have a catastrophic side effect.

"Officials might default to silence in the face of the public's urgent need for information," Jacobs wrote.

The ruling, filed Thursday, applied only to a suit brought by five government employees who did rescue and cleanup work at ground zero, but it contained language suggesting that similar legal claims could face trouble.

It specifically mentioned a class action lawsuit brought by lower Manhattan residents who claim Whitman jeopardized their health by declaring that "the air is safe to breathe" at a time when, according to the EPA inspector general, a quarter of dust samples were recording unhealthy asbestos levels.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts, refused to dismiss that case, calling Whitman's statements "conscience-shocking."

That decision is now on appeal and has yet to be argued before the 2nd Circuit, but Jacobs indicated a reversal might be imminent, saying outright that the panel disagreed with Batts' reasoning.

Those developments brought a blunt assessment from attorney Stephen J. Riegel, who represented the national guardsman, deputy U.S. Marshal and three city emergency medical service workers who were the subject of Thursday's ruling.

"There is a prospect, essentially, that these people will get nothing through the court system," Riegel said.

Some preliminary scientific studies have indicated that as many as 400,000 people were exposed to toxic ground zero dust. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have fallen ill, and several have died from lung ailments blamed on inhaled Trade Center ash.

Thousands of people have sued various government entities over their exposure to the toxins.

Riegel said his own clients, who worked without respirators as the dust still swirled because they had heard EPA statements that the air was safe, had decided not to appeal.

More important decisions are pending: The 2nd Circuit recently announced it would hear a rare mid-case appeal of lawsuits against the City of New York, alleging it didn't do enough to protect rescue and cleanup workers from airborne dust.

Plaintiffs trying to hold government entities accountable for their injuries have some tough legal hurdles to overcome.

The law generally doesn't allow citizens to sue the government for mere incompetence, or failing to prevent someone from being injured; To win, plaintiffs must often prove that government employees actually created a danger themselves, through actions "so egregious, so outrageous," that they "shock the contemporary conscience."

Jacobs said Whitman and other EPA officials fell short of violating that standard, even if they had acted with deliberate indifference.
.
"A poor choice made by an executive official ... is not conscience shocking merely because for some persons it resulted in grave consequences that a correct decision could have avoided," he wrote.

"These principles apply," he added, "notwithstanding the great service rendered by those who repaired New York, the heroism of those who entered the site when it was unstable and on fire, and the serious health consequences that are plausibly alleged in the complaint."

An EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to a phone message Friday.

Told ya!

Told ya! (well, not specifically...but I might as well have!)

We're on our own fellas and fellers.

Dennis Jacobs

The latest name added to the high treason list.

Don't forget...

It was a three judge panel.

Was the vote unanimous?

--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

...

Shame On The Courts For Not Giving Justice To Our Heroes


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

OUTRAGE!

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_110172106.html


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Nothing left to do but join

Nothing left to do but join the Truth movement for most of the responders.  Playing by the rules has done nothing for 6 years for the heroes, and this turn of events is one last jab by the true perpetrators.

Exposing the Truth will finally get the responders the help they need.

What I'd like to know is where did all the millions of donations go.  Money poured in for months after the attacks and it should have gone to these people to take care of them, not to go to the Red Cross for "Administrative Expenses" or anyone else who got their grubby hands in it.

Going...

To do another fund-raiser soon.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

A powerful sacrifice

Jon, Somebigguy has a point. Surely this will motivate more 1rst responders to take a closer look at the 911 truth movement? I am surprised that more of them are not already on board, and more visibly so.

Their voices pack not only emotion but also expertise. As you know better than I.

It is a terrible way to get good PR, but nonetheless... why not at least make the best of something which is in itself very bad.

It is like a sacrifice, and a very powerful one at that.

First Responders for 911 Truth?

Reaching out.

"Surely this will motivate more 1rst responders to take a closer look at the 911 truth movement?"
Coincidentally I shared a little beer, wine and conversation with a first responder last nite. Believe it or not he holds the title, "uh, Captain of the fire department." I quizzed him on the reaction of his fellow fire fighters about 9/11. (I gave him a copy of Loose Change a while back. ) He said that they had downloaded and watched some of the "conspiracy theory" videos at work but ,in his words, "having a discussion about who was responsible is like talking to assembly line workers." In other words the fire fighters were more interested in discussing the actions of the fire fighters on 9/11 than the politics behind it. They could only relate to the plight of the actual workers. I think that's an important thing to consider when reaching out to first responders. BTW, my friend wants to keep informed on the progress of the Truth Movement.
My point in all this is, if we can't appeal to first responders on the underlying issues, we can appeal to their compassion and generosity with respect to the health of members of their "fraternity," which can eventually expose them to the Truth.
If 9/11 Truth groups all across the USA and Canada contacted their local fire departments with the purpose of raising awareness of the first responders issue, it would also serve the purpose of raising awareness of the 9/11 Truth and Justice issues. We can point them to organizations like the Fealgood foundations and even offer to help with fund raising events wherever possible.

Reaching out 2.

I will do my part by making my friend aware of this article as well as the Fealgood Foundation. Any other suggestions?

Heroes regardless

In other words the fire fighters were more interested in discussing the actions of the fire fighters on 9/11 than the politics behind it.

It is often said by government apologists that we are insulting the firefighters by suggesting the government was involved. This is a lie -- these people acted heroically regardless of who perpetrated the attacks. I think it is enough for us to make that point to the firefighters.

The real insult is using the heroism of these people as cover for your crimes. We are not doing that.

John Feal...

Was recently asked in an interview, "Why do you associate with the 9/11 Truth Movement?", and if I remember correctly, he responded by saying, "Why wouldn't I?"

As soon as that interview's available, I'll post it.

I'm not making excuses as to why more first responders aren't speaking out, but I do know that taking care of their health concerns is the top priority, and takes up most of their time/stress, etc... Maybe ny911truth.org or wearechange.org can start a NY first responder campaign whereas they go to each precinct with a very carefully written plea, and a few dvds to hand out.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

BTW...

If that interviewer did ask John Feal that question, the answer is very simply...

WE COVERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE ANYONE.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it "media."


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

How many people...

Would take part in a 9/11 Truth Boycott? You would only get essentials (which to me is food, gas, and cigarettes), and we would completely stop spending our money on things like restaurants, videos, movies, games, whatever... non-essentials...

Just a thought... We could send out press releases, contact the media, promote it on our websites, make it a movement thing...

And the reason... we want a real investigation. Whether that be here, or somewhere else, we want a real investigation.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

The $ is the only voice that

The $ is the only voice that is heard it seems. If you don't have it, you have no voice.

I'm down.

It'd take thousands of people to call and/or write the media, the advertisers, the companies themselves, and local government officials to effectively explain why they have chosen to go minimalistic on the capitalist economy that this country's leaders in the public and private sector so aggressively promote.

/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

It can grow

Jon, I have had the same idea.

This idea can grow. Who cares how small a movement it is, at first.

A general boycott is newsworthy. Since it is a big sacrifice, it will have powerful effects, no doubt about it. But it may take a while. And it needs publicity, but that shouldn't be so hard to get.

Also, our health will improve. Since all we'd be renouncing is, basically, unhealthy trash... to speak a little negatively about what our modern society has to offer.

We are supporting the system with our dollars, and our participation.

This is why I fashioned my earlier signature:
______________________________________
"Evil can only exist as long as we support it."
M.K. Gandhi

So shall we BOYCOTT THE MSM?

What about finding sponsors for the Responders, instead?

Jon,

A boycott might be limited in its ability to help the responders. What about the responders approaching corporations for "sponsors"? Surely, companies would profit from the publicity associated with helping their 9/11 heroes? There must be some corporations that don't approve of the pathological politics of the Bush Regime.

I realize it doesn't really forward 9/11 Truth, but it might have a better chance of succeeding than a boycott, and it might do more for the responders than a boycott.

Other boycotts don't seem to have the desired impact, either financially or in terms of PR.

.

I'm sure Jon will answer on his own, but I read his post as recommending a boycott in general, and not just about the first responders. He called it a "9/11 Truth Boycott", not a first responders boycott.

Not that the difference matters so much. Your idea about corporations looks good to me. It will take finding the right ones.

Yes...

I was referring to 9/11 Truth as a whole.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

No surprise here.

I know first hand how corrupt the courts are. Nothing they do surprises me. The entire Government from top to bottom is totally corrupt. What we need is a complete house cleaning. Just in case you haven't figured it out yet we live under the most criminal government this planet has ever seen. Even Hitler and Nazi Germany have to take a back seat to these treasonous scum. They all should be hung.

Utilitarian arguments -- where do they end?

The opinion says that substantive due process protects citizens from "arbitrary action of government," which is "the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective."

The court is saying that if even if the EPA were deliberately indifferent, they were trying to restore order to the community and prevent panic. The court also seemed to say that economic considerations were legitimate, and that government agencies weigh risks all the time. In comparing the case to another case where a court said that false claims of anthrax safety made to a postal employee could "shock the conscience, the court said in essence that the government could lie to "restore the residential, economic, educational, and civic life of the entire community."

Where does this end? I'm sure a great utilitarian argument could be made for allowing 9/11 to happen, even making it happen. This argument is implicitly accepted by Americans that are happy as long as the oil flows, and don't want to know what it takes to keep it flowing. The fact that the state compensated the 9/11 victims' families makes the utilitarian argument even stronger.

That would not be recognized as proper by the courts, of course -- the court talks about a case where police used skinheads and said that it is not alleged that the government was working with the terrorists in this case. However, the utilitarian argument for state action that harms individual citizens has disturbing implications, and I could see some hardnosed (insane, in my book) Dr. Strangelove-type geopolitical thinkers thinking that a 9/11 inside job was justified for the greater good of the state.

All of this said, the court has a point that government agencies have to make tough decisions, and saying that New York was unsafe could also have resulted in loss of life. But I think that the economic costs were the main consideration, and that this is wrong. At the very least, the injured should not bear the saved costs without compensation for their own losses. These people have as much right to compensation as the families of 9/11 victims.

Thanks

I was hoping you would comment on this.

You're welcome, Casseia

Thank you for saying that.

Nice reply

Very insightful! It's hard for us to imagine, but the facts of this case do indicate that the government has "legal" justification for lying.

Can we get the names of these judges so we can humiliate and make effigies of them?

Very well said, Ningen

Thank you for taking the time to express that as well as you did.

Is this ruling something that may get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? I hope so as then it may get the press attention it needs and deserves.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

That's up to the plaintiffs

and the Supreme Court would have to accept review.

I think they can ask the Second Circuit for hearing by the full court (en banc), which would be as many as 15 judges. This is discretionary, I think, but might give them another chance before the Supreme Court.

a "Poor choice"?

"A poor choice made by an executive official ... is not conscience shocking merely because for some persons it resulted in grave consequences that a correct decision could have avoided," he wrote."

 

Is deliberately misleading people (lying), and falsifying reports not conscience shocking?

 

Apparently not, according to this court

Because the government was trying to put the community on a normal footing i.e. avoid panic, keep order, restore services, repair infrastructure, and preserve the economy, it was fine for the government to make misleading statements to ensure that rescue workers began search recovery cleanup and other work and to create an overall impression that the area was safe.

The court also reasoned that holding government officials responsible for the information it puts out would chill the government officials from offering information at all. But isn't false information worse than no information at all?

I could see not wanting to chill officials from offering information by holding them liable for mistakes, but here, the court is implicitly condoning deliberate misrepresentation by officials in pursuit of their view of the collective good, and saying that they should not be chilled from doing that.

The court says that government needs to be able to restore order after disasters. But isn't it necessary in such cases that people trust the government? Doesn't condoning lying by government officials ultimately hinder the goal of disaster management?

Here is a link to the decision:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTEwNzct...

Renewing scrutiny possible?

I guess what really gets to us here is that top levels of government, at the very least, allowed this disaster to happen and knew it was coming beforehand, perhaps because they planned it and actually did it.

Then to absolve itself of responsibiltiy to the health of those sent in to make order out out that horrific chaos, is chuztpah to the nth degree. Amazing.

I know that you too have surmised this, and long ago, so my comment here is not meant as a corrective to anything you have said above. These are useful posts; thanks.

Ningen, if this whole 911 episode were to ever break open, like Watergate in the -- what was it? 1970s? -- would this ruling ever come under renewed scrutiniy? That is, could the law go back on this, even though it has been decided already, once having found that the governmnet itself, or parts of it, caused the very disaster that the cleanup crews then suffered from?

Tough question

Here is a very general answer.

There are circumstances in which the statute of limitations is tolled (clock stops running) on equitable grounds such as fraudulent concealment of wrongdoing. This is an exception, not a rule.

Here is an article that generally discusses what some of the issues might be, in the context of civil RICO claims. I have no idea how this would apply to the claims here, under current law in that jurisdiction, and this is of course intended only as a very general answer to your question.

http://www.rivkinradler.com/rivkinradler/Publications/newformat/200310ke...

It describes federal common law of equitable tolling due to fraudulent concealment as follows:

Under federal common law, a statute of limitations may be tolled due to the defendant's fraudulent concealment if the plaintiff establishes that: (1) the defendant wrongfully concealed material facts relating to defendant's wrongdoing; (2) the concealment prevented plaintiff's 'discovery of the nature of the claim within the limitations period'; and (3) the plaintiff exercised due diligence in pursuing the discovery of the claim during the period plaintiff seeks to have tolled.

I have no idea if a new claim would be allowed. Please don't read too much into this. There might be other legal reasons a claim would not be allowed.

THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHITE!!!

Christine Todd Whitman should be put in jail for Crimes Against Humanity and Mass Murder, among other 'lesser' crimes.

Yet again, it makes non-Xtians hope that there really is such a thing as "Hell", or, preferably, something worse.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst & Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

"When the game is over, the king and the pawn go into the same box."

9/11 Truth -- The Path to Peace

They are in hell, already

they love power, not people.
______________

interns < internets

"catastrophic side effect" ???

The only side effect to allowing lawsuits would perhaps be JUSTICE?

This is so disgusting and criminal.

Judges do not sit for life!!!

Judges sit for life you say. Well this is what everyone is told and what is practiced, but this is not Constitutionally sound. Look at the Constitution and actually read it. Article III, Section 1 states:
"...The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Tell me where in the heck that says judges hold their positions for life (or as long as they want to). We are taught there are three parts to the system of checks and balances, legislative, judicial, and executive. What we are not taught is that there is a FOURTH, and the MOST IMPORTANT part, the people!!! Let's get these bastards out!!!

just a cool little observation......

but i was watching a documentary on PBS last night(it was about Islam and stuff, it was largely propaganda) and at one point they were talking about the internet and media and they cut to a computer screen which CLEARLY was playing 9/11 Mysteries:Demolitions(it was at the beginning where the conservative republican is talking from the small tv set). it only lasted for literally a second and anyone watching it would have had no idea what it was unless like myself they happened to have seen 9/11 Mysteries. still though, i thought it was interesting that some random dude at a library happened to be watching 9/11 Mysteries while PBS was filming a documentary.

An EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to a phone message

But it did responded later or what?

So there is a new ammendment to the constitution?
to protect the criminality of public servants whenever their negligent incompetence is proved to have caused the deaths of hundreds as to avoid the reluctance of future public servants to come forward with information on future disasters?.... do they think we are all morons?...

do they want us to consider the false crimminal advise to the public given by this puerka, as just candid advise like what bush gets from his advisers?

god please wake us up, let us take our country back from this criminals.....

I am pretty sue

That these assholes want us to take up arms. Look at how they continue to spit in th face of the heros. The people who went to the pile to try and save the injured.

They do not care!

They want us to come out of our homes and unite against them.

We may be their only stumbling block standing between them and their goal. They are sitting in a place where if they do not get us to come after them then their plan will not prevail.

They really need a reason to stay in office and squashing an uprising would provide that for them. They would rid themselves of those willing to stand up and they will be able to institute Martial Law.

I have been thinking about this or some time. Every instance like the VT Masacre and judges screwing first responders. I just know that they want rebellion. They are preparing for it. This is their back-up plan.

Sad as I am to say this.... We may want to ride this out then take it to the next President. Keep spreading the word. We have the momentum.

Our House and Senate need to censure our leadership. Remove them from power.
___________________
Together in Truth!

9/11 First Responders To Be On "The View" This Wednesday, 4/25

From John Feal:

I hope you all get a chance to watch the 9/11 responders on "The View" on ABC @11.00AM this Wednesday the 25th. One of those responders will be Vito Valenti, a 9/11 volunteer, sick with fibrosis of the lungs and needs a double lung transplant. Vito also sits on the board of directors at the FealGood Foundation. I can only hope Rosie and the others do the right thing for these three heroes that day. Please support these brave souls, Bonnie Giebfried, Alex Sanchez and Vito, and the FealGood foundation.

Thank you and God bless you all.

John Feal
"Lets make America great again, together"


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Bad information…?

There is a massive difference between bad information and lying to the public about dangerous air quality.