dojW000775.xml

dojW000775.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-21

Mr. Kenneth Zwick
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Zwick:

My name is &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp
My son-n-law &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp worked for &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp. He was &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp years of age.

Children:

Please accept the comments and opinions of the attached letter as that of my own. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.

Signed:

Individual Comment

Attached letter


November 21, 2001
Mr. Kenneth Zwick
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Zwick:

Five thousand people were murdered on September 11, 2001. They left that morning to
work at the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and were at their desks by 8:30 A.M. Some
said "I love you" as they left, some said "see you later", and some said "don't forget to put air in
your tires." None came home that night. None will come home anymore for the rest of forever.

In response to the Justice Department's request for public comment on the "September 11
Victim Compensation Fund" established by the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act, we respectfully submit the following. However, before we begin our
substantive comments, please allow us to make you aware of one fact. Be very clear in knowing
that there is nothing you could possibly do on this earth that could compensate us for the loss of
loved ones. You could offer us one billion dollars each, lump sum, and we would trade it along
with all our worldly possessions to have them back, to have them home. The Victim
Compensation Fund is purported to be an attempt to "make whole" the families of
the victims lost in the attacks. Unless you have supreme power which will result in the return of
our loved ones, "making whole" is impossible. Alternatively, we are hoping this legislation
results in a fund which truly is an incentive for families not to pursue litigation. Thank you for
giving us this opportunity to comment.

RIGHT TO A HEARING

The legislation as written does not make clear whether or not we will have right to be
heard before a hearing officer or Special Master. Only we can present the specifics of our
personal situation and loss and therefore rightfully deserve the opportunity to do so. This would
include the right to be represented by counsel, to present evidence, to offer personal and expert
testimony, and to present our expectations of relief. This would require each case to be heard and
considered individually. While this may be time consuming, it is the only way to insure that each
family suffering this loss is fairly represented and thus fairly compensated.

ECONOMIC LOSSES

We strongly oppose any cap to the amount recoverable through the Fund for economic
losses suffered as a result of the death of our loved ones. Husbands and fathers worked long
hours, sacrificing the precious time they had left with their families and children, to earn the
salaries and bonuses accrued every year. This income is forever gone; to reduce it in any manner
is contrary to the statutory attempts to "make whole" the family suffering as a result of this
disaster.

The computation of the amount of lost wages should be similar to that used in personal
injury actions. Retirement age should be set at 68 and the decedent's age subtracted from there.
Gross income should be averaged over the past three years. The resulting income and years to
retirement should be multiplied together for a starting point for computation. Factors such as
inflation, wage increases, merit advancements and any other benefits that would have earned had
the victim's lived should be considered and added to the base amount.

NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES

We, again, strongly oppose any cap to the amount recoverable through the fund for
non-economic losses suffered as a result of the most public, painful and horrific deaths of our
loved ones. Each case must be evaluated individually and must take into account specifics such
as the number of the decedent's children and their age, the severity of the pain and suffering of
both the victim and his family members, and the severity of the loss and pain to be suffered as a
result of reliving this tragedy as a moment in history for the rest of our lives, for the rest of their
children's lives.

It is worthwhile to note that families with substantial pensions, with a lost spouse nearing
retirement age, or with income received as a result of the death of the victim would be unable to
benefit from this Fund unless the recovery under this section is substantial. There would be no
incentive to pursue a claim offset to pecuniary loss or minimal benefit. Litigation in this instance
would be obviously pursued.

COLLATERAL INCOME

We strongly oppose and are greatly disturbed by the clause in the statute which requires
any distribution under the fund to be offset by "the amount of collateral source compensation the
claimant has received or is entitled to receive . . . [including] life insurance, pension funds, death
benefit programs . . . "
Since this is a governmentally sponsored fund, we find it understandable and acceptable to
reduce the amount recovered under such by the monies received through other government
programs. However, reducing the amount distributed by proceeds of life insurance policies
personally purchased by the decedents is unreasonable and contrary to public policy. It
establishes a system of disparate treatment among the victims in that it penalizes some for
investments made through personal purchases, while excusing others. For example, victims who
increased their families' assets through personal purchases of stock or related investments to a
level where life insurance was not necessary, would be able to collect from the fund as written
with minimal offset. However, those who planned to increase family assets through life insurance
would have the same distribution substantially reduced by the amount of the life
insurance proceeds. If an individual purchased a rare painting for his estate planning, sold after
his demise at a substantial financial gain for his heirs, his families' distribution under the fund
would not be reduced. Yet distribution to the family who purchased life insurance instead, if
regulated as planned, would be offset by the proceeds. It is quite simply an unequal and unfair
provision.

The government may not investigate and penalize against the personal purchases of
individuals. We do enjoy the right of the protection of liberty in this country, we have the right to
earn a living and spend our after tax dollars as we see fit. Supplemental life insurance, obtained
with personal funds, must not be included in the provisions which regulate distribution
reductions under the Fund. If revising the language of the statute is not an option of this
Committee at this juncture, or not an option until properly challenged, we submit that reduction
of the distribution under the Fund by a percent of the proceeds of employer sponsored or funded
life insurance would be an acceptable compromise.

COLLATERAL INCOME/IRA'S; CHARITABLE DONATIONS

Pension funds, IRAs and 401K plans are essentially savings accounts of another name
funded with the personally earned money of the decedent. The choice of one's particular
occupation or allocation of his income gave rise to the monies available at retirement or death in
these accounts. Again the issue of disparate treatment arises. Individuals who saved in a standard
bank sponsored savings account suffer no reduction from distribution under the Fund. Individuals
who allocated their savings of personally earned income to retirement accounts suffer reduction
of the total amount in savings to that which would be distributed under the Fund. In deference to
the governmental involvement in IRA's et al., money owed due to preferential tax treatment of
savings in retirement accounts could be reduced from Fund allocations, but principal determined
to be from personal savings must not.

In the end, we lost our loved ones because they worked in a national landmark. The
terrorists chose these buildings, the World Trade Centers, because they symbolized the American
economy, the freedom of capitalism. It was an act of war on America and the American people
recognized this. As a result, in an effort to support our country and to unite with those of us who
suffered the greatest loss in this tragedy, the American people donated hard earned money to ease
the burden of those of us left to suffer this loss for a lifetime. Donations were generously given as
a form of healing for both donor and receiver.
It is reprehensible that the very charities trusted with the responsibility to honor the wishes of the
American people see fit to withhold the donations for personal objectives, yet to have the
government attempt to belittle the gesture of its own people even further is as horrific as the
tragedy itself. The money donated is toted as "a gift from the American people." Since when does
our government have the right to investigate our personal gifts and require the recipients to "pay
them back"? Charitable donations must not be considered a source of collateral income to reduce
the amounts distributable under the Fund. That is not in the spirit of which the donations were
given. Restitution of the amounts by a reduction in Fund allocation would serve only to
financially benefit the government. If that is what the people of this country had intended, they
would have sent their checks to the government first hand.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

One of the liberties we enjoy in America is the right to an appeal. In cases heard before a
judge in trial and in most heard before a hearing officer in an administrative agency, respondents
enjoy the right to appeal the decision. Plaintiffs would have the right to appeal a decision on
varying levels if litigation were pursued in response to the events of September 11. Denying one
the right to appeal the decision of the Special Master is not an incentive to consider merits of the
Victim's Compensation Fund. And it is contrary as well to the standard practices of adjudication
of this country.

Finally, we would respectfully request that payment under the fund be paid in one lump
sum and as directed by the claimants. For example, sums paid to a victim's minor children should
be permitted to be made in trust with vesting as determined by the minor child's guardian.

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on regulations which will bear great
effect on our lives and the lives of the children of the victims. We have suffered the greatest of
losses because we live in America and because our loved ones worked in the symbol of
American capitalism. We are changed forever; we bear the burden of other's hatred of our
country's ideals more than anyone at this moment in time. Think of the children as you write and
finalize the regulations associated with the Victim's Compensation Fund. Think of the children,
not partisan loyalties. Think of the children, because if you do not now, you will have lost the
opportunity to support your fallen families forever.

Sincerely yours,


September 11 Victim's Families

2001-11-21