911 Heroes Silenced

No gang of villains is more depraved and despicable than those in the Bush and Clinton administrations and their collaborators. From the Oklahoma City Bombings to the 911 attacks, the veritable proof is insurmountable. An article published by Popular Mechanics, titled "9/11 LIES: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Hard Facts," fails to disclose that the "senior researcher" behind it is none other than Michael Chertoff's cousin, Benjamin Chertoff - now the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Regrettably, the majority of Americans remain woefully unaware of the atrocities being inflicted upon them.

It is our right to know the truth behind 9/11; however, the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration, and all other complicit parties have done everything in their power to keep the public in the dark. Thankfully, there are those who do care, and we refuse to remain silent. Below is the complete court decision denying access to the oral histories and interviews of firefighters and other workers involved in the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, the public is also prohibited from obtaining any information related to phone calls made to the 911 emergency center on that day. Furthermore, before the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the interviewed firefighters' opinions and recommendations must be removed, leaving only their "personal expressions of feelings" for the press to receive.

To give an example, if a firefighter who participated in an interview claimed, "I heard what seemed like explosions and I believe it was bombs that brought down those towers, it was all so terrible," the media will simply focus on the part that states: "it was all so terrible." Furthermore, transcripts of recordings of phone calls made to 911 on the day of the attacks will not be disclosed at all, as the Court declared that it would be an invasion of privacy for the families of the survivors (even though the surviving relatives indicated to the Court that they had waived their right to privacy). It is appalling what our leaders have inflicted upon us. 

Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Department

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 11, 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 US146), 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.