You prefer claims from an anonymous message board poster to court documents and links from newspapers. You think Dick managed to see and account for the experience of every single person at Ground Zero. Got it.
On Mar 21, 1:56 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > " And I provided proof of > those claims. You asked why the city was sued - THAT is why." > > I know EXACTLY where Dick Thompson lives and he is indeed right in the > middle of the affected area ... I prefer and believe first hand info over > that posted by some third party or some one with "money to lose" by being > honest. > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM, reallyconservative < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > In the first place you have to acquire the > > respirators before you can get them to the area. > > -- > > > According to the link above that you apparently chose not to read, > > that was supposed to have been done long before 9/11/01. > > > And I've made no claims whatsoever, other than there were apparently a > > lot of people working and living there who didn't wear masks and that > > they were assured the air quality was fine. And I provided proof of > > those claims. You asked why the city was sued - THAT is why. > > > On Mar 21, 1:46 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And you base that on what? Define proper warnings. Tell me how you > > > get all the required respirators to all those at Ground Zero on Day One > > > after what had just happened and the number of people who either live or > > > work in that area. In the first place you have to acquire the > > > respirators before you can get them to the area. Then you have to > > > transport them to the area. Once you do, unless you are bulldogging > > > everyone, some are not going to heed the warnings. And I am supposed > > > to believe that one? I only know that what I saw and what I experienced > > > and what the man who lived next door experienced at Ground Zero. He > > > was a heavy equipment operator and volunteered for 3 weeks operating the > > > heavy equipment to help clear out Ground Zero. Neither of us saw what > > > you claim happened and both of us saw the EMT and the fire dept and the > > > police dept and the way they handled things. That most definitely does > > > not agree with your claims at all and we were there. > > > > reallyconservative wrote: > > > > Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liar and full of shit. > > > > >http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/02/28/2010-02-28_a_911_smoki. > > .. > > > > > No - the city and feds never told people the air was safe to breathe: > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/07/usat-wtc-acov.htm > > > > > Nah, there was no problem with enforcing regulations that required > > > > people to wear respirators: > > > > > Remarkably, not one fatal accident occurred on the pile. But the > > > > city�s inspectors found that by late October, only 29 percent of > > > > ground zero workers were wearing the sophisticated respirators that > > > > were required by OSHA. Even Mr. Giuliani sometimes showed up without > > > > one. > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14giuliani.html?_r=1&pagew. > > .. > > > > > Nah, no ground zero workers or residents have died from rare lung > > > > diseases: > > > > >http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/post_911_sarcoidosis > > > > > And while I agree that if the masks and proper warnings were indeed > > > > provided to everyone in danger, those who chose to not wear them have > > > > nobody to blame but themselves, it doesn't appear that the proper > > > > warnings were provided NOR the respirators to all of those at Ground > > > > Zero from day one. > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:11 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> As one who worked in that area, you are full of s*it. The city had > > > >> special setups all over the place with EMT, face masks, bottled > > liquids > > > >> 24/7 for weeks after the event. We were not even permitted to go to > > > >> work for 3 weeks and even then they still had all the EMT, face masks, > > > >> bottled liquids after that. The technicians were all over the place > > to > > > >> see that people were safe. What more could they do. I know what they > > > >> did. I was there. I worked in that area. I have emphysema and they > > > >> sure saw that I was safe. You really do not know what you are talking > > > >> about. > > > > >> reallyconservative wrote: > > > > >>> Not true. Apparently there were a ton of toxins (including asbestos > > > >>> and benzene) in that rubble. And the workers were told not to > > concern > > > >>> themselves with it and to go about their business. That's > > > >>> negligence. The city (or the leaders of the first responders) should > > > >>> have made sure all of them wore protective masks before digging in > > > >>> that rubble. > > > > >>> On Mar 20, 10:34 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> Why in the hell would ANYONE get a settlement unless they were suing > > > >>>> al-Qaeda ??? The only "fault" or action lies with them..... > > > > >>>> Talk about drinkin' kool-aid !!!!!!! > > > > >>>> On Mar 20, 1:12 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> Originally published 12:05 a.m., March 20, 2010, updated > > 12:30 > > > >>>>> a.m., March 20, 2010 > > > > >>>>> Judge rejects settlement for 9/11 rescuers > > > > >>>>> ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > > >>>>> NEW YORK | A federal judge on Friday rejected a legal settlement > > that > > > >>>>> would have given at least $575 million to people sickened by ash > > and > > > >>>>> dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal shortchanged > > 10,000 > > > >>>>> 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 > > > >>>>> Sept. 11, 2001 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 the Sept. 11 attacks to the country. > > > > >>>>> "This is no ego trip for > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politicalforum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
