dojN002228.xml

dojN002228.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-22

Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:14 AM
September 11th Victims Compensation Fund comments

To the Special Master:

The family of , a victim of 9/11/01 WTC terrorist attack, wants to protest the regulations of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund for the following reasons:

1. The presumptive award as stated by the regulations narrows down to a concept of signing a contract without receiving adequate and accurate information beforehand; it accounts to an uninformed consent. It seems to us that families of the victims of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were not only robbed of their love ones lives, but now your regulations are robbing our rights. Criminals, robbers and others belonging to obscure business have Miranda Rights, right to free counsel, and unrestricted right to sue when done wrong. Healthcare patients have Bill of Rights, informed consent, and other protections such as unrestricted right to sue when done wrong. Where are we cataloged?
2. Your regulations lack consistency with the rule of law. You treat us different from anyone else. These regulations are clearly inconsistent and contrary to the statues for compensating victims families.
3. Our government failed to protect its citizens at home. The responsibility for this massive failure not only includes the airline industry, but the FAA, FBI, CIA; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, WTC leaseholder, and the City of New York/Fire Department for failing to have adequate evacuation plans to rescue workers in the upper floors in extreme cases of emergency and/or fire. Many families received calls from their loves (who worked at 1 WTC 101st floor and higher, or 2 WTC), these workers were alive and well after the first plane hit Tower One and were trying to find exits. The obstacle was that the stairs were blocked, and these unwilling victims were unable to safely reach their way out. Notwithstanding these facts, our government (that failed to protect our love ones in the first place) has placed restrictions/limitations on our ability to sue when done wrong.
4. Congress and President Bush intended to compensate families for the harm done to each family (economic and non-economic damages). The deceaseds families are entitled to receive full and fair compensation for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of benefit to have the victim live his/her life to the fullest. Yet, your regulations arbitrarily limit the term relatives and minimize the financial aspect of economic losses. Its language limits the term relatives to wives and children. What about the victims who were single, yet responsible for other relatives? Many victims provided services and assistance to their families, and these families should be unrestricted in receiving the full value of these services. Regarding the financial aspect of your regulations, the growth path of earnings must accurately represent this group. Most victims were highly successful and financially independent. Their path of earnings and their rate of salary increases were well above the national average. But not only the Special Master does not considers this crucial point, he goes one step further and lowers the base of the financial award by computing a mean based on last 3 years earnings. Remember, Osama Bin Laden attacked the symbols of success and capitalism.
6. Furthermore, your regulations treat the victims as statistical budgetary burden by using economic tables that are flawed and low. Additionally, , Forensic Economist, stated that the calculation of your work-life tables uses old statistics from 1979 and 1980 and that these numbers are lower for women. The number of women and their rate of success and working years have greatly increased since then.
7. The presumptive award should not be reduced by the amount of contribution victims estates have received from pension plans, 401K, life insurance, voluntary contributions from employers, social security, etc. Our love ones earned these monies throughout their working years; it is rightfully theirs.
8. Our family has a question that we would like to be answered: Is the unconditional generosity of the people of this nation greater than the Federal Governments conditional liability/failure to protect its citizens in their own homeland whose only "fault" was to go to work the morning of September 11, 2001?
9. Our family supports Cantor Fitzgeralds position on this matter.



Yours truly,

Individual Comment
Staten Island, NY

2002-01-22