911 Firefighters Silenced!By David J. Stewart
There is not a more hateful murderous gang of thugs than the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and those who support and work with them. From the Oklahoma City Bombings to the 911 attacks, the factual evidence is overwhelming. Popular Mechanics magazine published an article called "9/11 LIES: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Hard Facts. What they don't tell you is that Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Tragically, the average American citizen is woefully ignorant of the crimes being committed against them. We have a right to know what happened on 911; but the 911 Commission, the Bush Administration and all parties involved have done their utmost to keep the American public in the dark. Fortunately, there are people that do care, and we are not going to be quiet. Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision to deny the public's right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken from firefighters, and of other workers, concerning the 9/11 attacks. This also bars the public from information regarding phone calls made to the 911 emergency center that day. Before the records of the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and recommendations of the firefighters interviewed must 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 phone calls people made to 911 on the day of the attacks 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). It is monstrous what our leaders have done to us. The Bible says that the wicked shall be turned into Hell (Psalm 9:17).
Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Department
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 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[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.