- Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters'
opinions & recommendations - only their expressions of feelings can
be released !
-
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004
-
- Dick,
-
- Alex Jones <http://www.infowars.com>www.infowars.com
now on radio is playing clips of Silverstein owner of WTC while on TV with
WT7, said "Pull the building" which means bring it down, and
even said there would be a terrible loss of life. This is when the Bldg
7 collapsed. It was also in a documentary on PBS in Sept. 2001.
-
- Then Dan Rather comes on and says it looks like "well
placed dynamite." The only reason the firefighters went in the building
is because they knew a building like (concrete and steel) that has been
safe, and some hotels have been on fire for days. They reported the fires
were out.
-
- Why was FEMA arresting people 2 days later with just
little film cameras? 9-11 was the biggest hoax ever! They have just classified
documents from Pearl Harbor. I can't find the "Operation Northwood's
Document" anywhere on the Net even in the Way Back Machine, which
was a WTC scenario...hummm. Any one having it please send it to me. I
prefer the Adobe version with a copy of the document.
-
- They won't even give us access to the tapes, probably
because the bombs going off can be heard in the background. The firefighters
were told by the FBI not to mention it, that it was a matter of National
Security. Many were taken to Bellevue, need I say more. I told everyone,
there was a mini-nuke set off and a short 14 day radiation life. The planes
were only a diversion, perhaps unmanned in order to make those impossible
maneuvers to hit the WTC, and no debris was found at the Pentagon. Seismographs
went off the charts when the planes hit the WTC, and those building imploded.
FEMA was there the night before and the media was ready. Tom Brokaw stayed
over and was in a business suit the BRIGHT AND EARLY the next morning!
-
- Those firemen do not just have a cough, but Cancer from
the radiation, and many of them will lose their lives. I hope every family
member orders an autopsy. But if they really want to cover it up, they
will just say COPD a generic diagnosis, covering all their bases.
-
- ----- Original Message -----
-
- From: <mailto:silver@nwinfo.net>Dick Eastman
- To: <mailto:Quigs_Fight@yahoogroups.com>Quigs Fight
- Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:51 AM
- Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters'
opinions & recommendations -- only their expressions of feelings can
be released!!!!!
-
- Soula Culver forwards an item from <mailto:911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net>911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
-
- Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision
denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews
taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to
phonecalls made to 911 on that day. Before the records of the oral histories
are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and
- recommendations of those interviewed will be deleted
first, so the press will only get the interviewees' "personal expressions
of feelings". In other words, if a firefighter who was interviewed
said, "I heard what sounded like explosions and I think it was bombs
that took down those towers, it was all so horrible", the press will
merely get the portion that says: "it was all so horrible". Additionally,
transcripts of tapes of the calls that people made to 911 on that day will
not be released at all because the Court said they would invade the privacy
of the surviving families - even though surviving family members indicated
to the Court that they waived such rights to privacy. There is one higher
court in New York that this decision could be appealed to, the Court of
Appeals, but I have seen no reports on whether the New York Times plans
on appealing it. These same records will not even make it to the 9-11
Commission without deletions. From what I remember, the deal the Commission
made with NYC is that the corrupt Commissioners will be able to view the
records in NYC in their entirety but only be able to take back redacted
portions and without names of people interviewed, etc., and of course we
can't count on the Commission to release to the public even the redacted
portions of records they receive. -- Angie
-
- http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm
-
- Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire
Dept.
- 2004 NYSlipOp 00091
- Decided on January 8, 2004
- Appellate Division, First Department
- This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in
- the Official Reports.
-
- Decided on January 8, 2004
- Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner, Gonzalez,
JJ.
- 2662
-
-
- [*1]
-
- This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in
- the printed Official Reports.
- In re The New York Times Company, et al.,
- Petitioners-Respondents-Appellants,
-
- v
-
- City of New York Fire Department, Respondent-Appellant-Respondent,
- Catherine T. Regenhard, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors-
- Respondents-Appellants.
-
- David E. McCraw
- John Hogrogian
- Norman Siegel
-
- Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun,
J.), entered February 13, 2003, which, in an article 78 proceeding brought
by a newspaper and a journalist against the New York City Fire Department
challenging respondent Fire Department's denial of petitioners' Freedom
of Information Law (FOIL) request for transcripts of interviews that
- respondent conducted of its employees (oral histories)
concerning their activities at the World Trade Center on September ll,
2001 (9/11), and for audio tapes and transcripts of 911 calls made on 9/11,
(1) denied the motion of nine family members of persons who died on 9/11
for leave to intervene as petitioners (Family Members), and (2) directed
disclosure of
- the oral histories albeit redacted to delete the employees'
personal expressions of feelings, opinions and recommendations, and (3)
directed disclosure of the 911 tapes and transcripts albeit redacted to
delete the opinions and recommendations of respondent's employees, and
further redacted to delete the words of 911 callers other than those related
to the Family Members, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion
to intervene, and to direct disclosure of respondent's employees' personal
expressions of feeling contained in the oral histories, and otherwise affirmed,
without costs.
-
- The motion to intervene should not have been denied simply
because the Family Members did not file FOIL requests and therefore are
not "person[s] denied access to a record in an appeal determination"
under Public Officers ? 89(4)(b). Certainly, the Family Members are interested
persons under CPLR 7802(d) to the extent respondent denied disclosure on
the basis of the privacy rights of close family relatives of 9/11 victims.
Moreover, although the IAS court purported merely to grant the Family Members
permission to appear as amici curiae, it effectively accorded them party
status by granting them substantive relief in the form of enforcing their
desire to waive any right of privacy that respondent was asserting on their
behalf. We also note that petitioners support intervention, and that respondent's
briefs on appeal do not address the issue.
-
- The IAS court correctly held that the material respondent
provided to the federal government as relevant to its criminal investigation
and prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui should be disclosed, even if it constituted
records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Public
Officers Law ? 87(2)(e) (see John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp., 493 US
- 146), since respondent did not meet its burden of showing
that such disclosure would in fact interfere [*2]with the Moussaoui prosecution
or deny him a fair trial. However, substantial portions of those documents
should be redacted as falling within FOIL's exception for intra-agency
materials (Public Officers Law ? 87[2][g]), namely, the portions of the
- oral histories containing the opinions and recommendations
of those interviewed, and the portions of the 911 tapes containing the
opinions and recommendations of the dispatchers and other of respondent's
personnel. Such opinions and recommendations are to be distinguished from
factual material, which respondent concedes must be disclosed.
-
- Not falling within the intra-agency exception are the
personal expressions of feelings contained in the oral histories, and we
accordingly modify to direct disclosure of such expressions. That such
expressions do not fit within any of the four exceptions to the intra-agency
exemption does not by itself establish that such expressions are intra-agency
material. Nor
- do such expressions, or the words of respondent's personnel
in the 911 tapes, fall within FOIL's personal privacy exemption (Public
Officers Law ? 87[2][b], ? 89[2][b][iv]). However, concerning the tapes,
the IAS court correctly held that the personal privacy exemption does apply
to the words of the callers. Disclosure of the highly personal expressions
of persons
- who were facing imminent death, expressing fear and panic,
would be hurtful to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities who is
a survivor of someone who made a 911 call before dying (see Matter of Empire
Realty Corp. v New York State Div. of Lottery, 230 AD2d 270, 273). The
anguish of these relatives, as well as the callers who survived the attack,
outweighs the public interest in disclosure of these words, which would
shed little light on public issues.
-
- THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME
COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
-
- ENTERED: JANUARY 8, 2004
-
- CLERK
|
