Choosing 9/11 victim lawsuits for trial?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Jun 29, 2007, 01:05

That headline, that question is why we’re here in Judge Hellerstein’s courtroom, this time 14D, half the size of the room for last week’s hearing. Of course, the usual suspects have been rounded up, lawyers for the airlines, the plaintiffs, a US attorney, fewer citizen onlookers, including myself, notebook open. Yet what I will hear will leave me as chagrined as June 14’s double-sized gathering reported in The 9/11 Victim’s Compensation Fund: cui bono?

This time, Judge Hellerstein is to announce a number of remaining victims’ cases to be tried for victims’ families that have not accepted fund money, but wish to take their loved one’s case to court for further inquiry, perhaps even for justice. Judge Hellerstein reminds the room that “the value of settling [for the money] has run its course.” And so? We are left with those who see some principle to stand for in a court trial, in discovery. In questioning how and why, for instance, their loved ones, how nearly 3,000, were murdered, especially given a $50 billion dollar intelligence system and a $500 billion defense budget -- all of which was totally inoperable on 9/11.

Somehow, it seems that the money won’t help those folks, those holdouts, get through the day and over the loss. Yet despite that fact, the good judge tells us, admitting it will probably come back to haunt him, “that money is the universal lubricant.” Ah yes, so let’s get to the greasing and make things turn. It’s going on six years since 9/11 and these hearings are still around.

That reminder leads the judge to a somber lecture that “life is short. And out of the mundane you can fashion something different, a memory for a different degree of pain for each person. Fashion a life beyond the pain. In fact, what is the fairest, most efficient way to get on with our lives? And if the opportunity comes, take it. We are not trying to cut short values or justice. But we have to get past 9/11. Let it go.” That is, despite the unanswered questions, despite these hearings, despite the massive sway of the media to swallow it all and buy the myth like a suit.

Then, rather than announce the cases chosen, the good judge asks both teams of lawyers what is the quickest, most efficient way to have some cases heard and -- subtext -- the whole bunch over with, “a wrap” as they say in the film business. Would it be, as one attorney suggested “to have the folks least uncomfortable, those willing to go forward,” to have their cases selected. Or would it have to do with those in the most manageable jurisdictions? Or should it be by the case itself, the individuals with fewer legal knots, less “discovery” needed, fewer people to grumble for them, fewer children?