Hellerstein Hijacks Victims' Settlement

Judge: $575M settlement rejected for 9/11 'heroes'
By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
Saturday, March 20, 2010; 6:52 AM
NEW YORK -- A federal judge rejected a multimillion dollar settlement for people sickened by ash and dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal to compensate 10,000 police officers, firefighters and other laborers didn't contain enough money.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein on Friday rejected a legal settlement that would have given at least $575 million to the victims, saying the deal shortchanged ground zero workers whom he called heroes.
"In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," said U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who delivered his pronouncement to a stunned gallery at a federal courthouse in Manhattan.
Rising from his chair, the 76-year-old jurist said he feared police officers, firefighters and other laborers who cleared rubble after the 9/11 terror attacks were being pushed into signing a deal few of them understood.
Under the terms of the settlement, workers had been given just 90 days to say yes or no to a deal that would have assigned them payments based on a point system that Hellerstein said was complicated enough to make a Talmudic scholar's head spin.
"I will not preside over a settlement that is based on fear or ignorance," he said.
Of the proposed settlement of $575 million to $657 million, workers stood to get amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $1 million.
Hellerstein said the deal should be richer. Too much of it would be eaten up by legal fees, he said.
A third or more of the money set aside for the workers was expected to go to their lawyers. Some plaintiffs had agreed at the start of the case to give as much as 40 percent of any judgment to cover fees and expenses. That might have meant $200 million or more going to attorneys.
Hellerstein, who presides over all federal court litigation related to the terror attacks, ripped into the agreement after hearing several ground zero responders speak tearfully of their illnesses and after receiving letters and phone calls from others expressing confusion about the deal.
He said he was speaking "from the heart" out of great compassion for the thousands of men and women who spent time at ground zero.
It wasn't immediately clear whether the judge's actions would kill the settlement entirely.
The deal had taken years to negotiate and was announced March 11, with about two months to go until the first trials.
A spokeswoman for the law partnership that negotiated the settlement on behalf of the workers said she had no comment on the judge's remarks.
Christine LaSala, president of the WTC Captive Insurance Co., a special insurance entity created by Congress to represent the city in the lawsuit, said the judge "has now made it more difficult, if not impossible, for the people bringing these claims to obtain compensation and a settlement."
She said the lawyers would confer with city officials and "try to find a way forward."
New York City's chief lawyer, Michael Cardozo, said, "We have great respect for Judge Hellerstein and will consider his comments, but his reaction to the settlement will make it extremely difficult to resolve these cases."
Hellerstein laid out a number of proposed fixes for what he saw as deficiencies in the settlement and told the two sides to resume negotiations.
He rejected the idea that a third or more of the money should go to the plaintiffs' lawyers and said the legal fees should be paid by the WTC Captive, not the workers.
Hellerstein said workers should have ample opportunities to ask questions and get answers about the settlement, and he offered to go on a mini-speaking tour to get information to the plaintiffs.
"I will make myself available in union halls, fire department houses, police precincts and schools," Hellerstein said.
He said more money should be set aside for people who later develop cancer that may be linked to ground zero toxins. He said he wanted to retain ultimate control over which workers were entitled to have claims paid.
Hellerstein acknowledged that he felt a personal connection to the case, calling it "the greatest burden in my life," but insisted that his unusual intervention was legally and morally necessary, given the importance of 9/11 to the country.
"This is no ego trip for me. This is work," he said.
Hellerstein spoke after several ground zero recovery workers had risen in court to describe a litany of health problems they believe are linked to inhaling the ash and dust left by the collapse of the World Trade Center.
The settlement rejected by the judge would have created a pool of at least $575 million for sick workers. That amount could rise to as much as $657 million if enough people accept the deal. Injured workers would get a payment in exchange for dropping their suits against New York City and the dozens of construction contractors it hired to handle the cleanup.
Money for the settlement would be funded with nearly $1 billion in federal taxpayer money that has already been appropriated.
The deal covers a broad list of ailments suspected of being linked to trade center dust, including asthma, chronic coughing and interstitial lung disease, which involves scarring of lung tissue. Some types of cancer are also covered.
For the plaintiffs with relatively minor ailments, payments would have ranged from $3,250 to $9,760. William Groner, an attorney on the team that negotiated the settlement, estimated that 40 percent to 60 percent of the workers would fall into that category.
The rest were to have divided the remaining millions in the pot, with a handful of the sickest getting $1 million or more. The amount they got would have been based on a complicated scoring system that ranks each illness by severity.
911Blogger user thinks Hellerstein is a truther...
Open door?
It appears, possibly, judge Hellerstein is quietly indicating 911 issues are actually important.
It could be a good opportunity for NY TM to approach Hellerstein with well prepared, substantiated legal claims to reopen a new investigation. In many ways, directly and/or indirectly, a new investigation would allow to show whats in the WTC powder, most notably superthermite. If small iron spheres, red&gray chips, etc are in the tissues of WTC workers lungs and making them ill, the people who put the superthermite in WTC should be held accountable.
This process will need further medical review to prove these compounds cause breakdown of human cellular composition.
Submitted by Habeeb Jalka on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 11:00pm.
»
His name has cropped up before re: 9/11
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=alvin_k._hellerstein
Submitted by scubadiver on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 2:16am.
»
Alvin Hellerstein
Dear scubadiver- Thanks for the link. He has been active with ACLU in acquiring CIA documents re: Gitmo torture. How the CIA can simply destroy 92 video tapes and get away is s clear sign of the times. Nonetheless, Judge Hellerstein has done his part in directing proper legal protocol assisting causes for 9/11 truth. I think he really does care.
The time is now. NY TM groups need to get with ACLU and get 911 workers to offer tissue samples. The doctors need to look distinctly for iron spheres, red/gray chips, aluminium, etc. They need to determine if these levels exist and are indeed toxic.
Submitted by Habeeb Jalka on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 4:33am.
ooo... a new "TM" master plan, and Hellerstein is on board!
Who is this Habeeb Jalka clown? He/she is seriously suggesting that Alvin Hellerstein is "ready" for the truth movement to approach him... BWAHAHAA. Seems weird that no one at 911Blogger is pointing out what a ridiculous notion that is!
A can of whoop ass...
As I mentioned to LW in a previous comment, the time is soon for TM to make critical advances. I do believe he and his team are charting a definitive plan of sustainable, well thought engagement. The plan will need financial backing.
Im in for $500 minimum. When the time comes, I sincerely hope ya'll can put some cake in the kitty.
The last guy in the video on the bullhorn, I like him.
It's on!!!
Submitted by Habeeb Jalka on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 10:05am.
Can you explain a little better?
What is the organization?
What is their plan?
What do they use the money for?
Etc.
Submitted by pfgetty on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 12:49pm.
911 Strategy...
Dear pfgetty-
All good questions and I dont yet have definitive answers. LW has just begun the strategic thinking process to advance 911 TM.
1. The organization is TBD. Perhaps several groups would be involved?
2. The plan is in its infancy and being carefully developed. Its best to learn from what and what does not work. The plan will need to be sustainable and effective.
3. Im not exactly sure the allocation of funds. However, as we step outside of the great discussions amongst ourselves we realize the unavoidable costs of engagement ie TV ads, logostics, legal fees, research, etc.
At this point its probably best the 911 TM experts inform the 911 strategic process.
I will offer that Judge Alvin Hellerstein in NY has inidicated the 911 workers and first repsonders now ailing from the WTC toxic powder are to be offered more money, more clear options and less money for the attorneys. It has slowed the process for all good reasons. Maybe he is quietly indicating this is the time for TM to approach him. This is a good time to piggy back on this 911 oppportunity while it's in the MSM. He has offered his committment to 911. He is making himself available in every fire station, school room, etc. Its best to cut grass when the sun is shining.
Submitted by Habeeb Jalka on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 12:15am.
Hellerstein: CIA can keep secrets despite ACLU demand
NY judge: CIA can keep secrets despite ACLU demand
By LARRY NEUMEISTER (AP) – 2 hours ago
NEW YORK — A judge for a second time has denied efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union to force the CIA to release names and documents relating to Sept. 11 detainees who were interrogated harshly.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein listened to lawyers for the ACLU and the government for more than an hour Wednesday before announcing he had not changed his mind and would issue a written ruling later.
He told attorney Larry Lustberg, who argued for the ACLU, that he had made an impact.
"However, I will adhere to the views I expressed last time and deny the motion," the judge said.
Last September the judge rejected a request by the ACLU to force the CIA to release records related to harshly treated detainees, saying he had an obligation "to defer to the extent appropriate — and that is substantial — to the decision of the director of the CIA."
CIA Director Leon Panetta had told the judge in court papers that releasing documents about the agency's terror interrogations would gravely damage national security.
The ACLU asked for a second chance to argue on the subject because some of the arguments by the government were made for national security reasons without the ACLU lawyers present in the room.
Lustberg told the judge he had an obligation to force the release of the identities of the detainees and related documents if he concluded that harsh tactics such as waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, weren't sanctioned by Congress.
"We believe, given all the disclosures that's taken place already, it would not hurt national security," Lustberg said.
The judge responded: "I was not appointed to be the director of central intelligence."
He added that he did not think it was the job of a district judge to determine what tactics used by the CIA are appropriate.
He put the government's lawyer, Sean Lane, on the defensive, though, when he asked if there comes a time when there is no intelligence purposes for keeping a name secret.
"What do we fear here?" the judge asked.
Lane said the government periodically reviews its reasoning for keeping documents secret and agrees to release them when national security would no longer be endangered.
After the hearing, Lustberg said he was disappointed. Once a written ruling is issued, the ACLU plans to appeal, he said.
"It's a ruling that courts are not going to second guess the CIA when it engages in torture," Lustberg said.
The ACLU had been seeking roughly 580 documents, including 53 field reports to CIA headquarters about interrogations.
An ACLU lawsuit already has forced the release of legal memos authorizing harsh methods, including waterboarding and slamming suspects into walls, techniques described by critics as torture.
The judge has said he likely would have ruled against public disclosure of videotapes documenting new harsh questioning techniques if the CIA had not destroyed them in 2005. The destruction was revealed nearly two years ago, and a criminal investigation into why the videotapes were destroyed continues.
The government has said the destruction was of 92 videotapes, including those containing interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah, who later told a military tribunal he suffered physical and mental torture and nearly died four times. Zubaydah claimed that after many months of such treatment, authorities concluded he was not the No. 3 person in al-Qaida as they had long believed.
The administration of former President George W. Bush had said some tapes were destroyed to protect the identities of the government questioners while the Department of Justice was debating whether the interrogation tactics were legal.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Judge's action in 9/11 health case raises eyebrows
Posted on Wed, Mar. 24, 2010
Judge's action in 9/11 health case raises eyebrows
By DAVID B. CARUSO
A federal judge pushed the limits of his legal authority when he rejected a settlement that would have paid at least $575 million to thousands of people who fell ill after working in the toxic ash of the World Trade Center, legal experts say.
The decision touched off a debate about whether the ruling would set a new trend or went too far.
From the moment U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rose from his chair to address his courtroom Friday, it was clear he intended to break new ground.
Declaring that he had a moral obligation to 9/11 responders, the judge outlined a number of big changes that would have to be made for the settlement to get his blessing, including putting in millions of dollars more for the sick and trimming the amount that would go to pay legal fees.
The 76-year-old acknowledged that he was breaking with legal tradition by getting so involved with the case.
"Most settlements are private. A plaintiff and defendant come together, shake hands, and it's done with," he explained. The judge usually has no part in saying yes or no.
"This is different," Hellerstein said. "This is 9/11."
Legal experts said the case was among just a handful in recent years where a judge had claimed a power to approve or reject a settlement between warring parties in similar types of legal disputes.
Traditionally, that authority to assess whether a settlement is fair is only given to judges in class-action cases, and a few other limited circumstances.
Hellerstein's decision to claim those same powers in this case made some legal scholars nervous.
"There is no procedural basis for holding a fairness hearing here," said Howard Erichson, a professor at Fordham Law School who teaches classes on complex litigation.
He said that, in essence, Hellerstein had undermined the parties' rights by barring them from resolving their dispute out of court.
Yet others praised the judge for interceding.
"I think he is doing a great public service," said Alexandra D. Lahav, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law who also works as an editor of the Mass Tort Litigation Blog.
Some scholars, she said, have called for judges to get more involved in protecting the rights of plaintiffs in huge mass tort cases, which are sometimes negotiated by lawyers without much input from their clients.
In some instances, that has led to settlements designed to maximize a law firm's legal fees with less concern for the best interest of the plaintiffs.
"In settlements like this, where there are risks that the interests of the lawyer and the client are not going to be perfectly aligned ... it is good idea to have the judge get involved," Lahav said.
Hellerstein's insistence on supervising the settlement would bring the "secret process" of negotiating a deal "into the public eye," she said.
"That's what the system should be about," she said. "He is forcing it out of the shadows, and then we can have a debate."
Cardozo School of Law professor Lester Brickman, a mass tort expert who has been following the case, called the judge's actions "unique."
"Everybody, including Judge Hellerstein, acknowledges that he can't write the settlement agreement, or blue pencil it," Brickman said. So in ordering specific changes, "He was not securely in a judicial role."
But he said federal judges also have wide discretionary powers, and the odds that he would be overturned on appeal were "less than one in a million."
Reaction elsewhere to the judge's decrees were mixed.
The New York Daily News praised him in an editorial published the day after the decision, saying he had "stood up for the rights and the well-being of the forgotten victims of 9/11."
The New York Post wrote that Hellerstein had engaged in "judicial malpractice" by killing a deal that would have both helped the workers and protected taxpayers.
"Hellerstein's outburst of judicial activism hasn't helped matters. Maybe he's just too emotionally involved at this point," the paper wrote in an editorial published Wednesday.
Lawyers representing nearly 10,000 ground zero workers in the case, as well as the legal team representing New York City, have yet to announce their next steps.
Options could include an appeal of Hellerstein's rejection, a return to the negotiating table or proceeding toward trials.
The first dozen cases were scheduled to come to trial as soon as mid-May.
The workers claim they suffered a variety of respiratory ailments linked to the trade center dust.
© 2010 San Luis Obispo Tribune and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com